President Obama spoke frequently of humility during last week's prayer breakfast. Congressional Republicans could use a healthy measure of that virtue should the Supreme Court rule that ObamaCare subsidies are not available in the 37 states with federally facilitated exchanges.

ObamaCare is the product of a yawning humility deficit. Its core conceit is that a group of very smart and ideologically like-minded people could reorganize the financing of a $3 trillion industry that touches the lives of 320 million Americans.

Its architects boast that more people have "selected a plan" this time around than during the program's disastrous initial open season. They are quick to overlook the law's wreckage — canceled policies, loss of employer-sponsored coverage, erroneous subsidies that will require people of modest means to repay the government with interest, and assorted other disruptions and deformations.

ADVERTISEMENT

A law that is minutely prescriptive too often got its prescriptions horribly wrong. Its flaws will reach the point of absurdity should the Supreme Court rule that its attempt to subsidize health insurance made most health insurance subsidies illegal.

The case of King v. Burwell would be a simple one, but for its social and political implications. The court is examining a defect in the law, one of many in what is perhaps the most poorly drafted statute in U.S. history. The provision in question provides that subsidized health insurance coverage is available only through an exchange "established by the state."

The IRS effectively rewrote the law to allow subsidies to be paid as well through the 37 exchanges that were not "established by the state," but by the federal government. In defending the agency, the Justice Department in essence argues that the IRS can change laws so that they conform to what Congress must surely have meant to write, rather than what they actually wrote.

The court should instead base its ruling on the bedrock principle that only Congress has constitutional warrant to correct its own legislative blunders. If it does, health insurance subsidies will no longer be available to millions of people who live in states with federal exchanges, presenting 37 governors with a stark choice between two unpalatable options: submit to ObamaCare's flawed framework by establishing state exchanges or let their constituents forfeit subsidized coverage.

Democrats will pressure governors to establish such exchanges while also pushing congressional legislation to authorize the provision of subsidies through federal exchanges. Republicans are floating alternative proposals that would subsidize coverage for low-income people and those with preexisting conditions, while stripping ObamaCare of mandates and relaxing some of its other requirements.

These proposals will meet with criticism, some of it justified. Getting the right subsidy in the right amount to the right person (or the right insurance company) on a monthly basis is tricky business. The administration had three-and-a-half years from the law's enactment to the launch of the exchanges to get it right. They didn't. Erecting an alternative federally administered system in a matter of months would risk a similar fate.

Perhaps what is needed is not an alternative national system at all. ObamaCare's serial pratfalls have led millions to question the federal government's capacity to administer the law. A judicial smackdown five years after the law's enactment will reinforce the view that Washington can't get out of its own way on healthcare.

Republicans should embrace this sentiment and argue that healthcare is too important to be entrusted to the people who brought us ObamaCare. They should advocate that governors be empowered to advance alternative ways of expanding coverage, springing them from ObamaCare's take-it-or-leave-it trap.

Congressional Republicans could accomplish this by advancing a bill to provide capitated allotments to states that would be based on the amount of refundable tax credits that its residents received during 2014. To qualify for an allotment, a state would be required to develop a plan for providing affordable coverage to low-income residents and those with pre-existing conditions. Each state would decide how best to achieve these objectives, with the results subject to rigorous evaluation.

States that already have set up exchanges could keep them and those that have not could still establish them. But they also could instead choose to be freed from ObamaCare's one-size-fits-all rigidities by opting to receive allotments. These allotments would provide the resources to launch innovative and effective alternatives to ObamaCare tailored to their state's unique characteristics. If some states institute defective regimes, the damage would at least be quarantined and not induce national contagion.

Resisting the temptation to develop comprehensive national legislation will prove no easier for Republicans than it has been for Democrats. But if ObamaCare has taught us anything, it is that the good intentions behind sweeping legislation are often overcome by unintended consequences. The humility that might engender perhaps will make them think twice about devising a national regime of health insurance subsidies and instead give each state the opportunity to fashion programs best suited to their circumstances.

Badger was formerly deputy assistant to the president for legislative affairs, where he helped formulate the George W. Bush administration's policy and legislative strategy.