Obamacare & The Supreme Court - Round 2

[No news, . . . yet.
DonDiego just wanted to initiate a thread with a neutral title so's the topic can be discussed rationally and impartially once the Supreme Court Decision addressing Federal Exchange Subsidies is announced.]

If the subsidies were to be struck down, the White House has no alternative plan:
"The Obama administration’s top health care official said Wednesday that if the Supreme Court stopped the payment of health insurance subsidies to millions of Americans, it would be up to Congress and state officials to devise a solution.
'The critical decisions will sit with Congress and states and governors,' Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, said at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Ms. Burwell and the White House have said that they have no contingency plans to deal with the chaos that could result if the court strikes down subsidies in the pending case, King v. Burwell."
Ref: The New York Times

I hope the Supreme Court reads the Obamacare Legislation before rendering a decision. That would put them head and shoulders ahead of the legislators who voted for this legislation.

The Republicans bring a lawsuit to the Supreme Court to destroy Obamacare. But if they succeed...it's Obama's fault! Classic.

“Hypocrite: The man who murdered his parents, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.” - Abraham Lincoln

Poor old DonDiego is disappointed.

DonDiego respectfully requests a rational, non-partisan discussion of the issue before the Supreme Court, . . . the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, . . . and the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision, whatever it may be.

Forum participants' speculation on the upcoming decision and possible rationales for whatever that decision might be might be interesting

But DonDiego requests the discussions as to whom is to blame and what, if anything, should be done should at least be held in abeyance until the court decision is announced. [How can the reader know who to blame or what to do if he does not know the decision ?]

So you want ramifications. Here ya go:

Perhaps they should have read the law before they passed the law.

I don't expect the Supreme Court to rule against the law but to say there is no "plan B" is dishonest.

Democrats "plan B" is incredibly simple: Fix the one sentence in the 1000 page health care law that republicans challenged the meaning of. Over. Done.

Republican's "plan B" is also simple: Cheer the outcome of their lawsuit while simultaneously blaming the president for the negative impact of it. And they actually believe that will work. I believe that was the plan when they shutdown the government too. I would expect a similar outcome in public response.

But DonDIego's implied lack of urgency from Democrats is right. Republicans seem much more scared their lawsuit will be successful than Dems. A successful verdict would mean Republicans would be forced to legislatively address the healthcare problem in this country. I cant imagine grownups in the GOP will sit back and let 6 million people lose their healthcare....I also cant imagine the Ted Cruz wing of the party voting for anything constructive to help those people. Sounds like an instant civil war to me - and in a presidential election cycle, no less. Deary, deary, dear. But like I said - I dont think the SC is going to rule against the law.

Well they weren't allowed to which was a complete head scratcher. Perhaps someone could give an answer, or better yet, two answers, one each from the other sides.

Ahh, . . . DonDiego presents those portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act deemed pertinent to the Supreme Court decision.

__Section 1311 defines a health insurance exchange, as a "governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State."
__Section 1321 allows the Federal Government to set up Federal exchanges in States that do not take on the task themselves.
__Section 1401 lays out who can get a Federal insurance subsidy. There, the law says that only those who are "enrolled ... through an Exchange established by the State under 1311."
__The glossary included within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care defines the term "State":
"In this title, [1] the term 'State' means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia."
i.e. The term State does not include the Federal Government.

So, . . . DonDiego suggests an application of logic to the Supreme Court decsion-making process.
Section 1311 defines a State Healthcare Exchange.
Section 1321 defines a Federal Healthcare Exchange.
Section 1401 declares subsidies are available to those enrolled in a State Healthcare Exchange.
The term State as defined within the Law does not include the Federal Government.

Therefore: subsidies are not available to those enrolled in a State Healthcare Exchange.
(n.b. DonDiego is not predicting what the Supreme Court will rule. He would not be surprised by whatever the Supreme Court concludes.)

Perhaps, alanleroy is correct. If the Law had been read more effectively the presumed error could have been found and corrected.

Or, perhaps, the Law as written did intend to exclude those enrolled in the Federal Healthcare Exchange from the subsidies.
On multiple occasions Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the prime architects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has stated that subsidies were explicitly not available to Federal Exchange enrollees intentionally to induce/coerce all States, even those governed by officials opposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to set up State Healthcare Exchanges.
Ref: reason.com

One can at least try to understand the issue, . . . or one can just post snippets of political propaganda from off the internets to support one's predetermined position on the matter.
DonDiego tries to understand.

DonDiego is unaware of anyone saying there is no "plan B". The White House just says it'll be up to Congress and the States to fix things.