SPONSORED:

Dem says ObamaCare doesn’t need a SCOTUS backup plan

One of the top defenders of ObamaCare said Thursday that he doesn’t believe his party needs a response to the looming Supreme Court case that threatens to torpedo the law.

“Should we be preparing for an adverse decision from the Supreme Court? I don't think we need to at this point because I just think it would be an unprecedented overreach from the Supreme Court if they decide against the government,” Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyOvernight Health Care: Trump takes criticism of Fauci to a new level | GOP Health Committee chairman defends Fauci | Birx confronted Pence about Atlas Senate Democrats call for ramped up Capitol coronavirus testing Senate Democrats seek to alleviate public concern about some results not being available on election night MORE (D-Conn.) told reporters Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Of course, the fix would be pretty simply if we had to, but I think right now, we need to make our argument as to why the law was constructed the way it was,” said Murphy, who spearheads the Senate’s “ACA Works” campaign.

Murphy hosted a call with Sen. Tammy BaldwinTammy Suzanne Baldwin Senate Democrats call for ramped up Capitol coronavirus testing Baldwin calls for Senate hearing on CDC response to meatpacking plant coronavirus outbreak Democrats demand answers from Labor Department on CDC recommendations for meatpacking plant MORE (D-Wis.) on Thursday in response to the Republican Party’s newest alternative to ObamaCare.

The GOP has hustled to create an ObamaCare replacement plan since the Supreme Court decided last fall to take up a case challenging billions of dollars of healthcare subsidies.

The case’s big question is whether the text of ObamaCare allows states to hand out subsidies if they did not create their own healthcare exchange. If the court rules against the Obama administration this spring, it would affect people in the 37 states that opted to use the federal exchange.

Murphy, who helped draft ObamaCare in 2010, said there is “absolutely no question in my mind” that the law intended to create subsidies for all 50 states.