The statute provides that insurance shall be made available on exchanges to “qualified individuals,” and further defines a “qualified individual” to mean, “with respect to an Exchange, an individual who” both wants to enroll in a qualified plan, and also “resides in the State that established the Exchange.”IMO, prior to the 2012 ACA ruling that allowed states to refuse to set up exchanges that no one, including Congress, envisioned that the states would NOT establish exchanges. Congress believed they had the right to force individuals to buy a commercial product under their power to regulate commerce. They had no reservations about the states not complying.
The government, as well as Justices Breyer and Kagan, argue that if the only way for a state to “establish” an exchange is to create it on its own, then there would be no “qualified individuals” in states that failed to do so, and therefore there would be nobody on the exchanges (and, as Justice Kagan surmised, no product to sell on the exchanges).So, it depends on what the definition of "establish" is and not what the definition of "state" is? Unbelievable.
Bttt
.....”Congress, envisioned that the states would NOT establish exchanges. Congress believed they had the right to force individuals to buy a commercial product under their power to regulate commerce. They had no reservations about the states not complying.....So, it depends on what the definition of “establish” is and not what the definition of “state” is? Unbelievable.”....
Might better be said the administration “Assumed” with the large marketing campaign they had ‘established’ and promoted heavily nationwide... that no state would oppose them after this “indoctrination” without it ‘appearing as if the states’ would be opposing the “health needs” of their public.