06-25-2015, 07:53 PM
I wonder what happens in 2016 when 10% of the subsidy burden is supposed to shift from the feds to the states. How exactly would that happen if the state isn't running it's own exchange? Drop in the [federal] bucket and fungible money and all, but seems like this ruling could challenge that transfer of burden.
And despite pretty clear language/intent, is the SCOTUS just going to rewrite laws that don't produce the intended outcomes? The language was not a typo - it was not in early versions of the law, and it was added to later versions and remained. And you don't need Gruber to tell you the idea was to pressure states to establish exchanges.
And despite pretty clear language/intent, is the SCOTUS just going to rewrite laws that don't produce the intended outcomes? The language was not a typo - it was not in early versions of the law, and it was added to later versions and remained. And you don't need Gruber to tell you the idea was to pressure states to establish exchanges.
