Obamacare & The Supreme Court - Round 2

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego
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.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Perhaps they should have read the law before they passed the law.

---

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.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroy
I hope it is struck down and is taken as a grand opportunity for a bipartisan effort to inject the law with smart improvements to really address medical costs. I've gone through a litany of ways that could cut costs in half and won't repeat them here...let's just say there's a lot of room for improvement.

Republican and Democrat working hand in hand to make a better tomorrow for us all. That's what I'm hoping for.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Double D claims he just wanted a non-partisan discussion.

But in his original post, he points out how the Obama Administration has no contingency plan for dealing with an unfavorable ruling, while failing to note that Congress, run by a different party, hasn't settled on a plan either.

Typical Double D passive aggressive bullshit.

---

What a strange post. How does Chilcoot see aggression where none is intended?

As DonDiego stated in his response to pjstroh's accusation of dishonesty: "The White House just says it'll be up to Congress and the States to fix things."
DonDiego actually agrees with the White House position of letting any necessary resolution of the issue to Congress and the States.

DonDiego has no hidden agenda. He thanks Chilcoot for pointing out Congress has not settled on a plan either.

Apparently nobody has a plan. Maybe there won't even be a need for a plan.

Things just get curiouser and curiouser.

*** EDITED TO ADD ***

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
My legal analysis of the case leads me to conclude there is about a 60% chance that the subsidies part of Obamacare will be repealed. The Court would be well within its rights to say it is not our responsibility to fix a typographical error it is up to Congress. Contrary to Don Diego’s premise that it is up to Obama Justice Scalia said it should be up to Congresses to fix it. I would expect any ruling would include language saying as much.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego
How does Chilcoot see aggression where none is intended?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroy
I hope it is struck down and is taken as a grand opportunity for a bipartisan effort to inject the law with smart improvements to really address medical costs.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: hoops2
Remember health care was supposed to go down, NOT go up, even by a little bit

---