heywood on 30/6/2015 at 12:30

---

OK, I will try to point out where you are wrong.

1. The law does not contradict itself. Section 1401 [26 U.S. Code §36B] authorizes premium assistance to taxpayers enrolled through an Exchange established by a State under 1311 [42 U.S. Code §18031]. Section 1311 is the section that contains the requirements for State established exchanges. For the purposes of Section 1311, an exchange is clearly defined as "An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State." The supposed contradictions you mention (e.g. distributing information, outreach programs) are contained within this very same section and specifically apply to State exchanges, therefore they are not in contradiction with Section 1401. Your claim that the law requires informing people of benefits they're not getting is simply wrong. Even the majority opinion doesn't make that claim. Here is a link to the actual text:

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18031) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18031
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B

2. One of the first canons of statutory interpretation is plain meaning. In the case of plainly written law, the Court's duty is to enforce it as is. The Court has a duty to interpret ambiguity but is not supposed to change the meaning of plainly written law.

In this case, the Court effectively extended the provisions of Sections 1401 and 1311 to apply to federally established exchanges, even though there is plain and clear language in both sections that specifically and unambiguously limits their application to exchanges established by a State, not "the state", not "in a State", not "for a State", not "on behalf of a state". I don't see how any impartial English-speaking person could read those sections and conclude they were meant to apply to federal exchanges.

EDIT: It's pretty clear to me anyway that the writers of the ACA thought they were requiring the States to create exchanges and expand Medicare. The Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius made it impossible for the federal government to force or coerce the States to participate. The correct remedy would be legislation which makes federally run exchanges a full equivalent. But that will never happen in the current Republican-led Congress. Even though I generally support the ACA, I can't see how this decision is legally correct. It seems to me that the Court usurped the legislative powers of the Congress to "save" a law that the Congress would not otherwise have saved.

faetal on 30/6/2015 at 13:24

---

I'll say the same as I've said to the other marriage cynics:

"I love being married - so does my wife. The original purpose of marriage isn't imposed on anyone. The institution's been co-opted by people who want to use it as a punctuation event for starting a life together. The government's role is little more than recording it."

Sure if you don't like marriage, there are a bunch of things you can find wrong with it, but the same goes for anything which people like/dislike by degrees.

Tony_Tarantula on 30/6/2015 at 16:21

---

Thanks Heywood. For everyone else that's entirely correct. The court doesn't have the power to amend or rewrite existing laws, they can only strike them down or uphold them as written.

Still Heywood you still seem to be under the misconception that Republicans hate the ACA. Nothing could be further from the truth: the bill was originally created by Republicans and they still fight aggressively to save the bill. Remember a few weeks ago when the Republicans(Not the Democrats, Republicans) were talking about how they'd introduce new bills to expand subsidies in the event the court struck down the original legislation?

They may talk a big game for their Southern voters but all their actions speak much louder than words.

Tony_Tarantula on 30/6/2015 at 18:44

---

Also, for anyone who keeps talking about how great the ACA is and how wonderful it's been for American Healthcare.

Go fuck yourselves. I'm looking for new insurance now as some of my old benefits expire soon, and I'm currently looking at a household income in the low 20's for the year since I'm starting school.

The prices are ridiculous( $400 USD+ monthly) for two healthy people in their 20's, for coverage benefits that are extremely shitty compared to what they were a few years ago. We're talking copays in excess of $1000 per visit with no vision or dental, and a relatively limited provider selection.



For the people who don't understand how someone could possibly be against the ACA, I've got three words for you.

Try it sometime



This ruling is going to go down in history alongside Wickard v. Filburn as one of the most crappy, most politically motivated rulings in American history.

heywood on 30/6/2015 at 19:52

---

OK, but health care costs in the US have been rising faster than the larger economy for 30-35 years. If the ACA had never been enacted, you still would have seen higher premiums and fewer providers year after year, because that was the long term trend. The ACA does not fix the cost growth problem, but it didn't cause it either. Until we can get the cost growth problem under control, every health care system is going to suck.



Does replacing 'license' with 'contract' actually change anything though?