Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: RIghtwardHo
No. You don’t interpret a law exactly as written. You interpret a law so it makes sense. The way it is interpreted by the 4th Cir panel makes no sense. It’s a “gotcha” analysis.

Are you criticizing the 4th Cir or the DC Cir? Either way, the law was written that way on purpose to pressure the states to set up exchanges and to shift the costs so the AFA could be "deficit neutral".

7 posted on 07/24/2014 9:17:09 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: MileHi

I agree. The intent of the law was clearly that the states would setup exchanges. It was intended to “make” or provide incentive for them to do so.


9 posted on 07/24/2014 9:21:33 AM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: MileHi

The law is unworkable in states that did not opt for expanded Medicaid, with or without the subsidies.

Most of the states that opted for the federal exchanges, also turned down expanded Medicaid. Without expanded Medicaid, the federal subsidies are unworkable. They would leave a huge gap of people in the middle, who would have to pay the full, high rate for Obamacare coverage. The Feds cannot force states to expand Medicaid coverage. Therefore, the law collapses under its own weight.


12 posted on 07/24/2014 9:30:21 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson