Rep. Babin introduces a bill to force SCOTUS justices on to Obamacare exchanges

It is unconscionable that those who designed and voted for Obamacare are exempted from purchasing a policy under it. After all, if the law is such a great idea, why shouldn't it apply to every American?

Efforts toward forcing congressmen and their staffs on to the Obamacare exchanges failed two years ago when members whined that they would lose valuable staffers who would have to pay more and get less coverage than their federal health insurance offered. The truth is, members of Congress and their staffs have a gold plated health insurance system and didn't want the higher deductibles and less coverage offered by Obamacare policies.

Texas Rep. Brian Babin has decided to take that idea one step further. He is introducing a bill that would force Supreme Court Justices - 6 of whom just voted to uphold Obamacare - on to the Obamacare state exchanges or into the federal marketplace to purchase their health insurance.

The Hill:

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.

“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.

Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.

His move follows the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday morning that upheld the subsidies under ObamaCare that are provided by the government to offset the cost of buying insurance.

The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said consumers purchasing health insurance from the federal exchange in roughly 34 states could continue to do so.

The ruling in King v. Burwell has spurred anger on the right, with conservatives questioning the logic of the decision.

“They deserve an Olympic medal for the legal gymnastics,” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told The Hill. 

Roberts argued in his decision that eliminating subsidies would have pulled state healthcare markets into a death spiral. That chain of effects, he added, was not consistent with ObamaCare’s intent.

“The argument that the phrase ‘established by the State’ would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive,” he wrote.

Forcing our leaders to abide by the same set of laws that the rest of us must follow should be a fundamental tenet of our republic. But Congress and the courts have carved out exemptions, putting themselves above the law. In the case of Obamacare, the congress falls back on the notion that compensation is their business alone and choosing to be covered under civil service health insurance plans is legal and acceptable.

The twisted logic used to uphold subsidies shows that the Supreme Court was looking for a way to uphold Obamacare rather than ruling on points of law. One wonders if the justices had to purchase the same crappy insurance that the rest of us get under Obamacare, if they would have tried so hard to justify their vote.