New blow to the US Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

[Thenryb]

RE: New blow to the US Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

(Yesterday 09:29 PM)shoju Wrote:
I'm not saying that this ruling is wrong. I don't know enough of subsidies, and the like to even begin to understand it. But, previous rulings have made me want to vomit, and I'm pretty sure if I took the time to understand this ruling, there are some head scratching moments involved in this as well.
From what I've heard, it seems this contested language was a monumental flub by the crafters(mostly special interest groups lawyers). In looking at the structure of the ACA it was not obviously their intent to limit subsidies only to exchanges run by the States, but there it is, written that way in the law. The administration will argue that we should follow the spirit of the law, and read it as any "Exchange", while the DC circuit has read the law as it was written according to long standing judicial principle. Namely, "In the meantime, Justice Brandeis’ opinion for the Supreme Court in Iselin v. United States is controlling: “What the government asks is not a construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. " The remedy, which is not likely to get past a Republican house, is to correct the wrong language in the ACA.

If the language was ambiguous, the court could construe it to conform to "legislative intent". However, it is "clear and unambiguous".(Another legal redundancy)

Quote:
Also, throughout the ACA, and various other defining issues of the current POTUS Term, I've realized that I have a real hatred for the idea of States Rights.
On the one hand, we might be technologically advanced where one set of rules would suffice, and we could treat the whole of the US as one legal entity and forgo states laws. But, on the other hand we were arranged as a federation of states, and if a person disagrees with some law vehemently they might find a state with laws more to their liking. Although, uprooting from family and friends to escape from "law" is a very drastic move. I'm more in favor of minimizing the effect of "law" on citizens, that is ideally, "the least amount of necessary law".

As one who lives in a state owned by the Koch Bros., I wish it were feasible for me to move to a saner place, say Oregon.

So sorry. How do you deal with the donut hole? My wife is struggling to help her dying mother with the complexities of Medicare and health care in California. The bottom line is that they have pretty much just let her die, and did as little as was possible. It seems to me like additional insurance above Medicare is required.

I do not have donut hole issues, because I do not spend much on prescription drugs. Medicare + some kind of supplemental plan works just dandy. So sorry it is not available for all.