Back in September 2009. He tried to assure the American people that the Affordable Care Act would not provide insurance to illegal immigrants.
Obama: There are also claims that our reform efforts will provide safeguards for illegal immigration. This is also wrong. The reforms I propose do not apply to those who are here illegally.
Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina once shouted, “You lied.”
“That’s not true,” Obama responded. The Center for American Progress provided a helpful fact check, finding that “every proposal proposed explicitly disqualifies illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits.”
President Obama also said the Affordable Care Act did not raise taxes.
Now fast forward to June 2012. It was an impressive thirteen days of running! So much for the promise of tax exemption. However, in order to fulfill his other promises, in August 2012, the Obama administration explicitly excluded DACA recipients from the ACA and CMS definitions of “lawful presence.” Although DACA faces several challenges, not much progress has been made.
Two years later, in November 2014, the Obama administration announced DAPA. This executive action faced a serious legal challenge from the Texas Attorney General, and we saw the first significant nationwide injunction. Throughout the litigation, the Obama administration maintained that DAPA and DACA did not actually provide benefits to recipients. Rather, it is simply an exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.” (Stop me if you’ve heard this before). Of course, DAPA and DACA would give these aliens “legal presence” and thus allow them to work. But this is all because of the regulations of the Reagan administration. (Stop me if you’ve heard this before.) Administration lawyers insist that DAPA and DACA recipients are ineligible for health insurance benefits under the Affordable Care Act. (Stop me if you’ve heard this before.)
Fast forward to now. The Biden administration began “reconsidering” Obama’s policies in August 2012 and expanded ACA coverage to DACA recipients:
Previously, in excluding DACA beneficiaries from the definition of “lawful presence,” we held that alternative definitions of lawful presence should not be used as a basis for eligibility if the program was not directed toward the explicit goal of expanding access to health insurance. Touchstone. However, given the ACA’s broad goal of increasing access to health insurance, we now assess that this rationale for excluding certain groups of noncitizens from such coverage is not mandated by the ACA and does not best serve Fulfill Congress’ intent in the ACA. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has previously held that considering DACA recipients as eligible for insurance affordability programs is inconsistent with the relief provided by DACA policies. However, upon further review and consideration, it became apparent that the DACA policy was intended to provide beneficiaries with a level of stability and assurance that they would be able to obtain education and legal employment, including because beneficiaries remained in a lower priority for deportation. Expanding eligibility to these individuals meets these goals. There is also no legal mandate to distinguish between deferred action recipients under DACA and other deferred action recipients.
Now, DACA recipients will receive subsidies through state-established exchanges (which also include the federal exchange, thanks again to John Roberts). You can read the rules on page 145. But none of this matters. Chief Justice Roberts (thank you!) has said he is not willing to stop DACA out of trust, and we know the Chief Justice will never let anyone lose health insurance. Twelve years later, Obama and Biden will get away with it.
Ultimately, President George W. Bush’s decision to appoint Roberts to fill Chief Justice Rehnquist’s seat may be Bush’s most important decision — more than anything he did after 9/11, in Iraq or Afghanistan All are important. All of this behavior is in the rearview mirror, but our thoughts are still with the Chief. This was a decision Bush made under tight time constraints, understanding (perhaps) that Harriet Miles would be the fallback option.
Who lied anyway? DACA and ACA are back to square one.