Preparing for a Supreme Court decision that could strike down Obamacare’s subsidies for nearly 7.5 million people this summer, Senate Republicans are coalescing around a plan to resurrect them — at a steep price for the White House.

With several Senate Republicans facing tough reelections, and control of the chamber up for grabs, 31 senators have signed on to a bill written by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that would restore the subsidies for current Obamacare enrollees through September 2017. But the administration would have to pay a heavy price — the bill would also repeal Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates and insurance coverage requirements.


“In that moment of what could be political chaos, we’re offering such a reasonable proposal that solves a mess,” Johnson said. “It fixes a mess caused by a sloppily written law, unlawfully implemented. All we’re asking for is a little bit of freedom back, which would be, I think, pretty popular,” Johnson said. Even Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is backing Johnson’s measure, along with the rest of the chamber’s GOP leaders.

Johnson, who’s got a tight race in 2016, says the legislation would be a bridge to ensure that consumers can keep the insurance they have — a promise that President Barack Obama was widely criticized for breaking in 2014.

But even if Johnson could somehow persuade Obama and Senate Democrats to accept his plan — a herculean task — the bigger problem will be his Republican colleagues in the House.

The growing divide between the two chambers leaves the GOP in an awkward spot. The court could gut Obamacare in June, handing Republicans a long-sought victory they couldn’t achieve legislatively. But without a backup plan that the whole party supports, the GOP has no way to blunt the political damage if millions of Americans lose the ability to pay for their health insurance.

When asked about Johnson’s bill, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) gave a thumbs-down and, imitating a game-show buzzer, said only “Eerrrrrrntt!”

Republican Study Committee Chairman Bill Flores of Texas, who said he is planning to release an Obamacare replacement plan in the coming days, said: “If you’re voting for an extension, you’re essentially voting for the continuation of Obamacare — that’s a real problem.”

The court is expected to hand down a ruling in King v. Burwell in late June. Democratic lawmakers insist that there is no way to undo the damage if the court sides with the challengers, short of passing legislation that simply restores the subsidies. A new bill would allow the subsidies to go to residents of all states, not just the ones that set up their own exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans expect Democrats to have that one-page bill ready to go in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling against the subsidies.

“If it just blows up, then the president is able to just say, ‘Here’s my remedy,’ … and we’ve got to have a substantive alternative,” said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.). “You want to make sure that there’s a rational transition and that we can get to a post-Obamacare era without losing whatever momentum you have in this issue.”

He said the Republican alternative is just “not ripe” yet.

Obama has been adamant that he won’t support legislation that would undermine Obamacare. Republicans question whether he would stand by that pledge if he’s faced with millions of Americans losing their health care and a dissolution of his signature legislative success.

Several House Republicans insist that a ruling against the subsidies would force a new debate on the entire health care reform law. Many House Republicans are focused on replacement plans that would issue tax credits — instead of Obamacare’s tax subsidies — to help consumers buy insurance.

That’s part of the plan being put together by a group of three committee chairmen — Ways and Means head Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Energy and Commerce chief Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Education and the Workforce chairman John Kline (R-Minn.) — to replace the health law and respond to a court ruling.

Their proposal, outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, would allow states to “opt out” of the health law’s insurance requirements as well as the individual and employer mandates. Consumers would get tax subsidies to help them buy coverage. When asked last week about the plan’s status, Upton declined to comment.

Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), who has his own Obamacare alternative bill, would also issue tax credits — depending on age — that people could use to buy health insurance.

If the court rules against the White House, Price said an alternative could be put in place quickly. He doubts that a transitional policy — which Johnson and his supporters say would be needed to protect consumers from losing their coverage — would be needed.

“I think there’s a much better way to do it,” Price said of extending the Obamacare subsidies. “I think there’s a ready opportunity to move in the direction of patient-centered health care instead of perpetuating the [problems] in Obamacare.”

Some Republicans worry that any legislation that extends the subsidies, even temporarily, would not only box the party into keeping them indefinitely but also water down the party’s opposition to the president’s health law.

“We do get into a little trouble on the messaging because people say: ‘What is the difference between that and what we’re already doing?’” said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.). “Whether you continue subsidies or you use tax credits, they’re all tax credit programs one way or another.”

Freshman Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska is trying to thread the needle between preserving existing coverage and not embracing Obamacare. His plan would allow consumers to keep their Obamacare plans for 18 months after a potential Supreme Court ruling, but the amount of subsidies would decrease gradually over time.

A McConnell spokesman said the majority leader backs Sasse’s plan, too, although he is not listed as an official co-sponsor.