In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will issue a highly anticipated ruling on the case of King v. Burwell.  The lawsuit alleges that the Obama Administration went beyond the law in implementing the President’s health-care subsidies and mandates.

At the heart of the judges’ decision will be whether the executive branch ignored the statute passed by Congress and instead enacted policies to serve the Administration’s political interests.  According to the plaintiffs, the Internal Revenue Service’s practice of applying subsidies to both state and federal insurance marketplaces, or “exchanges,” unilaterally broadens the scope of the health-care law and federal spending.  The law as written allows subsidies for insurance plans only through exchanges “established by the State,” not by the federal government.

The King v. Burwell decision could present a prime opportunity to create a better way forward, but Congress will have to act quickly.  Without a backup plan, Americans currently receiving federal subsidies to pay for their health insurance – mandated by Obamacare in the first place – could abruptly lose their coverage.  They should not face the burden of potentially enormous health-care costs because they relied on an Administration that acted unlawfully.

The White House has offered no alternatives if the Supreme Court overturns its implementation of the law, putting the health care of millions of Americans at risk.  But Republicans are ready with a plan that offers relief until better reforms can be put in place.  Too many people have already suffered enough from the flawed law’s skyrocketing premiums, canceled plans, and website glitches.

I support a solution proposed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that offers a transitional period for Americans who may lose their subsidies because of the court decision.  The plan would give states the flexibility to create insurance markets that suit the needs of their residents.  Washington bureaucrats should not be making decisions about insurance coverage and benefit requirements.  Under Obamacare, exchanges are controlled by federal mandates and regulations.

Sen. Johnson’s bill, titled the “Preserving Freedom and Choice in Health Care Act,” would go even further than providing a temporary fix.  It would also repeal the employer and individual mandates, ending the law’s most burdensome regulations.  It builds on the “If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It Act” that I cosponsored last Congress, allowing individuals to keep plans that would have been canceled by the health-care law’s restrictions.

Millions of Americans have already lost the plans and doctors they liked because of the President’s health-care law.  Many now have been forced into coverage that does not meet their needs or their budgets.  Some still do not have coverage at all.  According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 31 million Americans will lack health insurance by 2024.

The goal of health-care reform should be broadening access, increasing choice, and lowering costs – ambitions that the President’s law has failed to achieve.  The legal battle is just one example of Obamacare’s failings.  We have seen enough damage.  It is past time for market-driven, patient-centered policies that put health-care decisions back into the hands of Americans – where they belong. 

This op-ed was published in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal on May 17, 2015.