“The Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision will determine
if this cancer patient gets chemotherapy.”
You can be forgiven for not having seen the article. In fact, our crack research team almost missed it. It was published on June 12 in an outlet called Vox, led by America’s alleged wunderkind and intellectual giant Ezra Klein.
Lefties like these are growing increasingly nervous as Decision Day draws near in King v. Burwell. Perhaps that’s why Kliff re-ran her story of Marilyn Schramm, which she first posted — with the same title — on February 26, 2015.
One wonders why she couldn’t locate another anecdote.
Here’s what Kliff wrote, in both pieces:
Marilyn Schramm is thinking about moving. She is a 63-year-old retiree who lives in Texas, and since November 2013 she’s purchased health insurance through Healthcare.gov. She has a policy that costs about $800 per month. Schramm, who earns $28,000 from her pension, pays about half the cost, and the federal government covers the rest with a subsidy.
Her best back-up plan right now, she says,
is moving to a place with a state-run exchange.
And Kliff doesn’t tell us why Ms. Schramm had to sign up with Healthcare.gov. Was she one of the millions whose coverage was canceled in late 2013? Kliff conveniently omits those details.
What’s more important is that Ms. Schramm, and everyone else in her position, receive some sound financial advice.
Kliff could have been trying to antagonize the Justices when noting Ms. Schramm may choose to relocate, but she inadvertently described a solution for Americans in Healthcare.gov states.
Yes, Ms. Schramm, you can — and should — move to a state with its own Obamacare exchange. It’s only logical.
Think about it. Older Americans migrate to certain states to avoid taxes on pension benefits and estates. Some move to states with lower income taxes, while others favor states with minimal property taxes.
Americans rightly gravitate to states that meet their personal needs. Even on a local level, undocumented immigrants are attracted to sanctuary cities.
So if the King plaintiffs prevail, Americans in states with federally-established exchanges won’t really lose taxpayer subsidies. They can still receive them — in the Progressive states who will welcome them with open arms.
Those states can be referred to as Medical Sanctuary States (or MeSSes).
Keynesian theorists understand that states with greater public spending promote economic growth. And, as our national treasure Jonathan Gruber explains, Progressive states, since they also embrace the expansion of Medicaid, will experience a major economic stimulus from the influx of federal dollars.
In other words, the MeSSes will economically thrive!
And it just keeps getting better. Liberal voters, eager for Obamacare subsidies, Medicaid, and other government benefits, should flood these MeSSes, thereby tipping census figures in those states and changing the numbers in the House, Senate, and Electoral College.
They’ll also overtake Conservatives in their state legislatures, improving state economies further through mandated minimum wages, higher state income, sales, and inheritance taxes, and other socially Progressive policies.
The best part? As Gruber notes, Conservative states will be paying federal taxes for the perks available in the MeSSes, thus accelerating the redistribution of wealth.
Given these obvious results, Progressives should cheer if the Obama administration is defeated in King v. Burwell. They just don’t realize this due to their basic “lack of economic understanding.”