The author is a liar.
The writer of this section of the healthcare law wrote exactly what he intended and he will tell you as much.
He wrote it to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges and did not believe for a moment they wouldn’t do it. He was wrong.
It’s funny how I can’t (not with any credibility anyway) go into court and argue that explicit language against my position is merely a “glitch” and the judge should simply rewrite the law. But so called respected jurists and scholars take that very position here.
If this were being considered outside the context of Obama’s signature legislative disaster then I’m confident the courts would tell the administration to live with it or ask Congress to fix it.
But a case as politically charged as this more will not get the same treatment.
My best guess is that the four who voted to strike down the whole thing will be more than happy to make the left live with the law that they told us to wait until it was passed so we could see what is in it. Now if Roberts will come through then I think zerocare is pretty well dead. It will just take more time and pain to get the courts and Congress to dismantle it.
Hopefully the country can survive in the time being.
I do wonder if Roberts regrets his 2012 vote.
Even if so I’m still pissed at him.
“established by the state” is a restrictive clause used no less than 15 times throughout the entire act to limit or define what benefits shall be provided.
There was not a “glitch” 15 times.
The writer of this section of the healthcare law wrote exactly what he intended and he will tell you as much.
He wrote it to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges and did not believe for a moment they wouldn’t do it. He was wrong.
The reason the “glitch” was put in was to cost shift enough of the cost of ObamaCare to the States to allow the CBO to certify that 10 year cost of Obamacare to the Federal Government was “only” One Trillion Dollars.
Any more than One Trillion and ObamaCare would not have passed.
We can pretty much call the “O” administrations a ‘glitch’ in American history
Exactly Right!
And there are at least 2 audio recordings of the writer explaining his intent to large groups.
If the writer of this section said this publicly, and it is documented that he said it, this fact should be used to nullify any argument that the wording doesn't capture the intent.
Exactly correct. The statute is crystal clear and, as you say, is exactly as intended.