[Conscience of a Conservative]

I read the statute, as it is written, and explained how the blog post you linked to was mistaken. The blog post looks at the language that states that that this new subpoena power applies to "any institution that is the subject of an investigation under this Act" and assumes that "this Act" means "[Obamacare]."

However, if you look at the statute, the quoted language is in a section that states that "The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 3 the following:" In other words, the language quoted in the blog post is language that will be added to another law (the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act). In that context, when the text refers to "institution that is the subject of an investigation under this Act," it is clear that "this Act" does not refer to Obamacare, but rather to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

ObamaCare must be repealed. But I think the arguments in favor of repeal should be based on a good understanding of what is actually in the bill. I am just trying to explain my own understanding of what is actually in the bill. How does that show any lack of critical thinking?

[mudblood]

Ryan, no undue offense but you’re a total troll. All your posts pick apart conservative posters. In and of itself, free thought is encouraged, but yours isn’t honest, I good at this - been there, done that. Tell Tracy I said hi.