The “Law” in so many different ways was designed to fail its way into Single Payer.
So, it was an ‘empty suit’.....................
Really?
Here is the plain text of the statute (PPACA):
SEC. 1401(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:
SEC. 36B (a) In General.--In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed
as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year
an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for
the taxable year.
(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount.--For purposes of this section--
(1) In general.-- <> The term `premium assistance
credit amount' means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum
of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2)
with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring
during the taxable year.
(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance amount determined
under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount
equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more
qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such
month for the applicable second lowest cost silver
plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product
of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's
household income for the taxable year.
How to you suppose that the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer is the lesser of their premium under (A) [explicitly specified as a state exchange under 1311], or (B) [which is claimed includes federal plans]? Is the taxpayer in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser premium applies?
If the claim that 36B(b)(2)(B) includes federal exchanges is correct, then 36B(b)(2)(A) must also include federal exchanges, something it explicitly does not do. Therefor 36B(b)(2)(B) must necessarily also refer to Exchanges established by the State under 1311, otherwise 36B(b)(2) would be meaningless because a taxpayer can not be enrolled in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser premium applies.
The PPACA explicitly allows tax credits for state-run exchanges and excludes such credits for federally run exchanges.
Ah, the statutory “purpose”. How convenient.
if you need to bring a lawsuit to check and id... and it’s tossed out of court constantly... why do you think any serious cases threatening the plans for the 0ne wouldn’t be tossed?
Congressional “intent” over the plain words of the statute is about as weak as you can get in legally supporting Obamacare on this one. This will come down to another political vote in the Supreme Court. C’mon Robertson, you said in your last opinion on Obamacare that Congress was free to correct it’s mistakes by follow-up legislation. (The problem is, the Dems know they couldn’t get anything through on Obamacare right now, so it’s up to the Supremes to rewrite the law again.)