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" .
Already happening. I am military retired so can see 'it' happening in the TRICARE and VA health systems.
Here's what happens now. I mainly see a civilian 'health care provider' who is a nurse practitioner. If you are lucky you get a Physcian assistant...No MDs to be found unless you go to an ER or have a referral to see an MD specialist of some kind. The doctors are pretty much out of the picture for primary care unless someone has a real need. For example, if someone is a cancer patient, in addition to seeing their oncologist they may be assigned an MD for their other than cancer primary health care. That's how it happened for me (when I was going through chemo) and what we fought to get for my son when he was going through chemo and got after a long fight.
So basically primary care providers are nurses, some PAs who will have to refer you to an MD specialist if they cannot prescribe some drug for you to solve your medical problem. They are good at prescribing drugs, giving shots and the minor aches and pains and cold and flu stuff. I have yet to find one who can actually read a lab report/radiology/xray better than I can, but I had quite a few years of looking at those myself:)
So the nurse practitioner(NP) can handle boo boos and minor things, and are the health care system's 'screening net' for referrals.
Here's an example. I had an appointment for pain in my side (real bad) and I had a kidney stone episode about 4 years ago with pain in the same side (not as bad this time). I told the NP all about it and he said "if it gets worse go to the ER and tell them and they will do a CT scan and xray." I asked him why he could not order a CT scan and xray and then review the results with an MD. He said 'it's so much easier in the ER.'
Quite amazing. I finally twisted his arm to put in the CT order. Now I have to wait for a real doctor to look at them. Why? Because the NPs and PAs just read what the radiologist puts on the report. They don't know what they are looking at themselves.
Supply and demand is such a simple concept - but seemingly impossible for statists to understand.
If the gov't were to suddenly start "giving away" free steak dinners at a 5 star restaurant (increasing demand), but not increase the number of 5 star restaurants (static supply), isn't it logical to think there would be a mile long or more line at the only 5 star restaurant in town?
Same with "free" health care.
Except with that particular freebie, there will be deadly consequences.
