[Libloather]

If subsidies paid through the federal exchange are killed by the court, you can be sure that many Republicans in Washington will celebrate as the people they represent find themselves without access to essential medical care.

If Husseincare's numbers continue, those 16,000 freshly hired IRS agents will be needed to go door to door to collect the late fine.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

[Ray76]

> Many commercial insurers could drop out of the exchanges...

“Single payer” is the goal. PPACA is a program of destruction.

[Jacquerie]

See, the obamcare mess isn't the fault of utopians like the immensely well paid Herr Gruber, nor Pelosi and Reid who ramrodded the bill through congress without giving members any opportunity to understand it, nor obama who has amended the law dozens of times.

We are to believe the obamacare mess is the fault of those who didn't vote for it, and possibly the judges who just might enforce it as written.

[goldstategop]

Not gonna happen.

The GOP has fully funded Obamacare through 2015.

No one is going to be deprived of medical care in this country.

[sphinx]

Health law expert Timothy Jost says that the ACA is actually two separate bills, the result of then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's strategy to get the Senate version through the House without opening it to amendments.

Well, yes. First, there is the bill Congress actually passed under reconciliation, bending the rules to the point of breaking them to do so, and without allowing House amendments. This was the only possible way to get the thing passed once Scott Brown had been elected.

Then there is the "second bill," which is the one Pelosi, et. al., wished they could have passed had they had the votes. With regard to the subsidies, Obama is busily implementing this second bill, despite the fact that the Congress never passed it, and the left is frantic that the courts enable the bait and switch.

[Tallguy]

“the Congressional Budget Office analyses presume subsidies to customers in all 50 states — proof that Congress always intended to provide assistance to income-eligible consumers whether or not their states opened exchanges.”

Dontcha just love it when an editorial starts with a big fat juicy assumption like that?!

[InterceptPoint]

Just as important, he says, the Congressional Budget Office analyses presume subsidies to customers in all 50 states — proof that Congress always intended to provide assistance to income-eligible consumers whether or not their states opened exchanges.

It proves nothing. Just as good are these two:

1. Proof that the Dems just knew that nearly every state would set up an exchange in order to get their paws on those subsidies.

Or 2. A 50 state worst case analysis was required.

If the Dems wanted the Federal Exchange to hand out subsidies they should have written that into the bill. They did just the opposite - they gave that right exclusively to the State Exchanges.

[Political Junkie Too]

proof that Congress always intended to provide assistance to income-eligible consumers whether or not their states opened exchanges. < p > This is nonsense.

There are 535 members of Congress, of which no Republicans voted for the bill. How can this author state what Congress "always intended" when all Republicans said no?

Besides, intent means nothing. Republicans intended things, too. What is debated and voted on is what counts, not what someone "intended."

Any court ruling based on Congressional "intent" that failed to pass the vote, is judicial activism of the worst kind. Why bother with the charade of debate, compromise, and vote, if the Democrats can always get the courts to give them what the always wanted in the end no matter the outcome of actual votes?

-PJ

[Gene Eric]

>> Republicans in Washington will celebrate as the people they represent find themselves without access to essential medical care.

The consequences of regaining one’s liberties. It’s something worth fighting for.

[facedown]

...you can be sure that many Republicans in Washington will celebrate as the people they represent find themselves without access to essential medical care.

What a childish thing to say. The author writes like a recently dumped teenage girl.