I would be curious to hear opinions from people who know more about health law than I do. I can think of three ways to understand the President’s decision to stop certain subsidies to participants in the insurance exchanges.
- The subsidies are illegal because there was no appropriation for them. This is the position of the House Republicans in litigation pending before the DC Circuit.
- The Act gives the President discretion to give subsidies.
- The Act gives the President no discretion (or not enough) and thus any cancellation of the subsidies is an unlawful impoundment of funds.
Which one is correct? Or is there a fourth option?