Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2015, 03:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And you said ascertain the intent of congress.  Do you really believe Congress read that and said, "Oh they are talking about the federal government there as well" or do you think, as one of the writers has stated that it was purposely limited to the states?  Their intent was to force the states to join in and not have the federal government to fall back on. 

So when Democrats said it was a problem going from one draft to the other or it was sloppiness, were they lying.  Since it was intended to include states and the federal government, why would someone claim it was more like a drafting error?

The Supreme Court said not too long ago, '“This court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”

Honestly, I don't know much about all of the details of the ACA issues to comment on the first part. I don't know what the Democrats said in regards to anything about it. I agree with Robert's assessment, however, that it was the intention for all persons purchasing insurance from an exchange to have the subsidy. I think trying to pick out specific phrases in that manner to try to negate an entire bill is ignoring the intention of the language. It's missing the forest for the trees. It should have been worded better, but at this point what's done is done.

As for the last bit, you're still banking on clear language in the bill, which isn't the case. The use of the term 'the States' changes in meaning within the bill, which means the language is not clear at all. The whole reason Roberts had to look at the law in a much broader way is because the language was not clear and he could not rely on it alone to make the determination.