At
the
end
of
the
month,
the
enhanced
Affordable
Care
Act
premium
subsidies
that
millions
of
Americans
rely
on
to
make
health
insurance
remotely
affordable
expire.
It
didn’t
have
to
be
this
way,
but
Congressional
Republicans
are
still
angry
that
Barack
Obama
passed
a
popular
health
care
law
15
years
ago
and
Democratic
Party
leadership
cannot
abide
standing
up
for
something
when
cowardice
is
also
an
option.
The
Republicans
have
promised
something
“better,”
but
have
yet
to
come
up
with
a
single
proposal
over
the
past
decade
and
a
half
because
the
last
time
they
tried
to
get
behind
a
health
care
policy
in
the
early
1990s
to
counter
Bill
Clinton’s
campaign
promises
they
rallied
behind
managed
competition…
which
is,
you
know,
Obamacare.
Since
their
last
attempt
at
specifics
ended
up
becoming
a
Black
president’s
signature
achievement,
the
Republicans
have
resisted
any
effort
to
take
another
swing
at
it.
But
for
real
people,
the
numbers
are
brutal.
According
to
the
Kaiser
Family
Foundation,
marketplace
enrollees
will
see
their
premium
payments
more
than
double
on
average
—
“a
114%
increase
from
an
average
of
$888
in
2025
to
$1,904
in
2026.”
The
Congressional
Budget
Office
projects
up
to
4
million
people
could
lose
coverage
entirely.
A
60-year-old
couple
earning
just
over
400%
of
the
federal
poverty
level
could
see
their
annual
premiums
jump
to
$22,600.
Lawyers
have
health
insurance
through
their
employers,
so
this
isn’t
going
to
impact
them
directly.
Unless
the
economy
tanks
and
we
get
a
run
of
layoffs…
so
maybe
next
year.
In
the
meantime,
among
the
millions
of
affected
Americans
are
a
lot
of
nannies.
And
nannies,
as
it
happens,
provide
a
lot
of
structural
support
for
Biglaw
productivity.
The
day-to-day
reality
of
billing
2200+
hours
while
raising
children
depends
heavily
on
the
domestic
workers
who
make
it
all
possible.
Workers
who,
unlike
Biglaw
associates,
don’t
have
employer-sponsored
health
insurance
rely
heavily
on
the
exchanges.
What
happens
when
nannies
can’t
afford
to
keep
wiping
little
Billy’s
nose
without
healthcare
of
their
own?
Losing
a
nanny
because
they
can
no
longer
afford
health
insurance
creates
real
disruption
for
lawyers.
The
recruiting
hassle
involved
in
replacing
a
good
nanny
rivals
any
attorney
lateral
search.
Are
lawyers
going
to
step
up
and
cover
the
difference
for
their
in-home
workers?
Interestingly,
we’ve
heard
unverified
rumors
that
at
least
one
Biglaw
firm
may
be
working
on
a
solution
to
help
folks
close
the
ACA
subsidy
gap
for
non-firm
household
employees:
nannies,
home
health
aides,
and
the
other
domestic
workers
who
purchase
insurance
on
the
exchanges.
It
sounds
like
a
good
idea,
one
that
can
generate
significant
goodwill
while
protecting
productivity.
But
is
this
actually
happening?
And
where?
If
your
firm
is
offering
any
kind
of
benefit,
subsidy,
or
support
related
to
the
expiring
ACA
subsidies,
we
want
to
hear
about
it.
Email
us
at
[email protected].
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.