Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said, it was done this way intentionally. Why would any state bother with an exchange if people could just do this through the federal government?
No, those who wrote this was trying to push many of the costs off on the states.
It was done on purpose.
Unlike the Constitution, the authors of the bill are alive and can speak to legislative intent. They have. They filed a brief stating the intent was to make insurance affordable, not to set up state exchanges. A reasonable person would glean that from the title "affordable care" act as opposed to "the state exchance inducement act", as well.
They rushed ACA through saying "We need to pass it in order to find out what's in it" and most liberals in here defended the insanity of such a notion.
The Supreme Court will simply rule that the language referring to "state exchanges" really means "State and Federal exchanges", and the problem will go away.
The Court has already done worse with its other Obamacare rulings.
This was a proof reading error in the original law. Someone at some level should have caught it. The two judges are trying to undo the law based on a technicality. This actually puts the Republican states in a predicament like Arizona where they supported Medicaid expansion. Now the Republicans will be in the position of telling people on the exchanges "sorry you dont get any help."
But it was not republicans that wrote the shabby language in this bill and it was not simply a typo. You can't ignore laws as much as you would like to.
Unlike the Constitution, the authors of the bill are alive and can speak to legislative intent. They have. They filed a brief stating the intent was to make insurance affordable, not to set up state exchanges. A reasonable person would glean that from the title "affordable care" act as opposed to "the state exchance inducement act", as well.
I thought the idea was to make healthcare affordable?
As I said, it was done this way intentionally. Why would any state bother with an exchange if people could just do this through the federal government?
No, those who wrote this was trying to push many of the costs off on the states.
It was done on purpose.
While I don't disagree, I think you're reading more into this than actually exists. The issue at hand is that the law explicitly provides for subsidies for people who enroll in state exchanges, but does not provide for subsidies for those who enroll under the Federal exchange. Regardless of the perceived "intent" of Democrats to push the costs onto the States, the underlying issue here is that there is no language in the law providing for subsidies for federal exchange participants. The Court's ruling is that Democrats and Congress were not able to sufficiently demonstrate their "intent" was to have States run their own exchange, even if the language on subsidies points that direction.
The bottom line is, Democrats failed big time on writing this legislation. Very rarely does major legislation make it through with such a major oversight. Like I said before, most legislation has some sort of semantical escape hatch built in to cover the ambiguities. And even with the semantical escape hatch, small errors are identified and corrected all the time. But this as a major, major omission on their part. And that's what the Court pointed to in its ruling.
The Supreme Court will simply rule that the language referring to "state exchanges" really means "State and Federal exchanges", and the problem will go away.
The Court has already done worse with its other Obamacare rulings.
I think this time around the SC will vote 5-4 to uphold the Appeals Court ruling.
Until then, I suppose the Senate will amend the law to cover subsidies under the federal exchange, putting the House on the spot.
The Supreme Court will simply rule that the language referring to "state exchanges" really means "State and Federal exchanges", and the problem will go away.
The Court has already done worse with its other Obamacare rulings.
When the Supreme Court recently ruled against the EPA a large part of this ruling was that the agencies can't simply decide to insert language that isn't there. Based upon that recent precedent it's unlikely they will rule that way here.
I think this time around the SC will vote 5-4 to uphold the Appeals Court ruling.
Until then, I suppose the Senate will amend the law to cover subsidies under the federal exchange, putting the House on the spot.
Assuming it gets past cloture. The House will not be on the spot if Harry Reid can't even get the votes to get it to the floor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
