Did the court answer the question of why that language was put in there to begin with? Why make the differentiation between states that set up exchanges and states that didn't?
Did the court answer the question of why that language was put in there to begin with?
I'll read the decsion later ;but the short answer is probably not . SCOTUS doesn't believe in the plain language of the Constitution .Why would they concern themselves with the plain language of a law ?
The court ignored the actual wording. Then the court ignored the intent of the wording. Instead, the court addressed the intent of the overall legislation and the court determined the best way to accomplish it.
Given the court's decision, there's no benefit now for a state to run an exchange. And what if the feds can't afford to run them and Obamacare goes bust? Oops. I guess that what happens when the court tries to write legislation instead of simply ruling on it.
Given the court's decision, there's no benefit now for a state to run an exchange. And what if the feds can't afford to run them and Obamacare goes bust? Oops. I guess that what happens when the court tries to write legislation instead of simply ruling on it.
Bringing us that much closer to single payer ;which has been the goal of the statists all along. I expect Obamacare will be a big issue during the elections because the individual penalty increases .....ooops I mean tax ... and the employer mandate kicks in . Watch the Dem chorus sing "it's settled law" .
Keep forcing the premiums higher in the private sector and people will demand single-payer.
Exactly. That is the obvious endpoint, and it is what we need. The Scandinavian model works for the basic needs: Universal publicly funded education, universal publicly funded health care, and universal publicly funded retirement.
That eliminates insecurity, and allows people to get on with their lives.
It's expensive, but it works consistently to produce a high performing, happy, prosperous society.
