Did Marco Rubio Kill Obamacare? "You bet he did"

Legal Insurrection

. . . "Laskey pointed to a 2013 article written by Joshua Green which explained why Rubio’s legislation could be deadly to Obamacare:

When the law was written, the winners and losers were expected to balance out, making the risk corridors budget-neutral. But if too many insurers lose money, the government may need to step in. While the ACA’s risk corridors are meant to transfer money from winners to losers, the text of the law (it’s Section 1342, for those following at home) makes clear that the government will pay insurers whose costs end up being significantly higher than anticipated. This is what Rubio is seizing on in his new bill—he’s calling it a “bailout” and trying to stop it.

There’s definitely some validity to the scenario Rubio is warning about, although no one can yet say whether it will happen—or, if it does, what the cost might be to taxpayers. Obama’s decision to allow people in the individual market to keep their plans certainly raises the likelihood. A Nov. 14 letter to Congress from the American Academy of Actuaries warned that if “lower-cost individuals retain their prior coverage, and higher-cost people move to new coverage, the medical costs for those purchasing new insurance would be higher than expected.” This would create a set of conditions “more likely to trigger risk corridor payments.”

If Rubio were truly motivated by concern that taxpayers might end up footing a “bailout,” there’s an easy solution: Write a bill stipulating that risk corridors must be budget-neutral. Presto, problem solved. But Rubio’s bill is far more sweeping than that—it eliminates risk corridors altogether by striking Section 1342 from the law. This is a clue that his real motivation isn’t to eliminate the possibility of a payout but to eliminate the Affordable Care Act altogether.

"In October, the Obama Administration confirmed Senator Rubio’s fight against taxpayer-funded bailouts of health insurance companies under ObamaCare succeeded in saving taxpayers over $2.5 billion this past year:" . . .