At least four Supreme Court Judges have decided to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, known in short as Halbig, that says the tax premium subsidies cannot be extended to any state on a federal exchange, because the law (in one place) said the subsidies were for state exchanges. Their argument is that it is clear that Congress meant to only have subsidies for state-based exchanges. They actually try to argue this. Basically, they're arguing that Congress established the federal exchanges so that they would fail. If you believe Congress didn't intend federal exchanges, which they established in the bill, to work, you believe Congress wanted their own product to fail. That is irrational and not grounded in reality, so much so that even if you don't want to believe the words of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd or anyone else involved in writing the bill, just the plausibility of what a critic is saying should dismiss it.
All that in context though, there could be five Supreme Court Republican-appointed justices who decide that Congressional intent behind the law was to deny subsidies to federal exchanges. It would be the most nakedly partisan ruling since Bush v. Gore, but it would be their decision to make, since they have the majority. The GOP Judges would essentially cause a showdown between the White House and the GOP Governors who won't set up an exchange. They'd set something else up too.
In states that have sane governors and legislatures, you'd have a health care system that works, covers the masses, and is affordable. People in New York, Massachusetts, and even Kentucky would have affordable care available. People in states with insane governors and legislatures would not. In effect, we'd have a system where people in some places have access to health care, and people in others can't afford it. We'd have separate but unequal. It's nice to know that the Roberts Court might consider that kind of segregation acceptable.
All that in context though, there could be five Supreme Court Republican-appointed justices who decide that Congressional intent behind the law was to deny subsidies to federal exchanges. It would be the most nakedly partisan ruling since Bush v. Gore, but it would be their decision to make, since they have the majority. The GOP Judges would essentially cause a showdown between the White House and the GOP Governors who won't set up an exchange. They'd set something else up too.
In states that have sane governors and legislatures, you'd have a health care system that works, covers the masses, and is affordable. People in New York, Massachusetts, and even Kentucky would have affordable care available. People in states with insane governors and legislatures would not. In effect, we'd have a system where people in some places have access to health care, and people in others can't afford it. We'd have separate but unequal. It's nice to know that the Roberts Court might consider that kind of segregation acceptable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment