Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mostpost
This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.
It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.
The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.
Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.
I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.
This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.
|
The language in the bill was deliberate and not an oversight. The intent was to make setting up state exchanges attractive. There is nothing to suggest that the intent was different.
The ruling may, in fact, get reversed by the full court but it is a slam dunk that the Supreme Court won't try to re-write the law simply because it didn't work as intended.
