Oh, the irony that we make it more difficult the poor to get affordable coverage, because some individuals didn't want the subsidies so that they couldn't afford it and therefore could opt out because it would be an economic hardship. No, not irony, insanity.
Speaking of sanity, in a sane world, this wording hiccup would be easily solved through minor legislation. Given the GOP, that's simply impossible. Yay for finding a tax credit the GOP won't vote for!
This won't be over until, I suspect, SCOTUS rules on it. Another appeals court today ruled the opposite direction.
Today’s Court Decision Might Make Health Insurance Unaffordable in the Poorest States
Halbig v. Burwell threatens to undo the Obamacare subsidies that millions of people in more than half the country rely on to buy insurance.
48 view(s)
Why are you blaming the GOP? This was a bill by Democrats without a single Republican signature.
Maybe they should have "read the bill" instead of "passing it so they could find what was in it".
I'm not blaming the GOP for the verbiage in question (though arguably it was a bill based on a Republican concept that had been supported by Republicans until, suddenly, it wasn't).
I am blaming the GOP for making it impossible to correct (if it needs correction) the verbiage glitch. And I am blaming the GOP for thus being willing to let poor Americans be unable to afford insurance coverage.
+Mark Means Why are you blaming Dave? Maybe you should have "read the post" and seen that his reference to the GOP was specifically about minor legislation to reword the bill. Incidentally, I used quotation marks simply because you did. I understand that quotation marks are used when quoting or to indicate sarcasm and not for emphasis.
Interestingly, it was a court in Virginia, of all places, that ruled the other way.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/appeals-court-va-upholds-health-care-subsidies-24665564
This sums up my feelings on the matter nicely: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Health_Care_Muddle
+Scott Randel Federal Circuit Courts don't necessarily mirror local politics. The Fourth Circuit is generally considered more liberal / Dem-leaning.
I have seen a number of US laws, and am always surprised how poorly written they are. Does nobody go through them before they are put in front of politicians?
I’ve pointed out the problem with the 2nd amendment- you can’t stop anybody in the US carrying a weapon, even prisoners. ***Dave pointed out the judicial decision that said the State (as in the country) can ban certain holders. The problem is this is literally making law from the bench, which they should not do. They can hand down a ruling clarifying anything unclear- thus though the ruling ‘the people’ means ‘everyone’ is silly it is legal- the phrase is not clear, and the opposite view would have been equally valid, because it can be seen as ambiguous.
However the 2nd is quite clear – the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You can’t say ‘that’s wrong’ because it is explicit- you can not stop the people owning arms. Once you define ‘People’=’every citizen” you can’t ban anyone from being armed. Yes it is stupid, but that is what it says. I suspect the writers meant the country as a whole- you can’t force the US to be unarmed as a nation. A judge CAN NOT (or at least should not) say ‘except in this case’ – the lawmakers have to do that. The 2nd would have to be amended, then lawmakers could bring in restrictions. (no disrespect to Dave – I know you are quoting a decision – it is the Judge that is wrong)
Likewise with this law- the judges have chosen a reasonable, if strict, interpretation. A more pro-ACA bench could choose to interpret “enrolled through an Exchange established by the State.” as meaning using the Federal system- ‘Established’ equating with ‘administered’.
I was the guy in my union branch that read rule and constitutional amendments that were put up by national conference. If someone says ‘It could be read that way, but no one would do that’ reject the amendment, until such time it is not ambiguous, because the mover might have the best intentions, but there is always some one looking to use the rules to their advantage.
A silly mistake happened here with LASPO 2012 (which deals with sentencing of criminals). Usually the date you need to know is the date of sentencing, rather than the date of conviction (in many cases they are rarely the same – the judge gets reports to inform his sentencing). However Westminster said they needed the bill in a hurry to get it voted on, and an early draught was taken over by mistake – the civil servant leading the writing, who would have noticed the wording error where ‘conviction’ was the key date, was off sick that day! The wrong paper was voted on, thus when I am working out release dates for any one with an extended determinate sentence from the end of 2012, I have to read the law to remind myself what I’m doing.
@LH – There is long jurisprudence in the US that makes it clear that none of the very broadly stated freedoms in the Bill of Rights is absolute. Having the right to free speech does not mean you can talk about classified national security material you have seen. Freedom of religion does not allow human sacrifice (except in a metaphysical fashion). The right to bear arms does not mean that all arms can be borne by everyone at all times. A free press cannot avoid libel laws (though those are civil, not criminal, laws).
The key has always been (especially in the last several decades) how narrowly those restrictions can be kept — as the Hobby Lobby case recently brought up, any abridgment of those rights needs to pass “strict scrutiny” test: in pursuit a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and the least restrictive means of doing so.
That one of the weirdities (or flexibilities), if you will, of US Constitutional Law — scholars and judges will devote careers to the analysis and understanding of any given word or punctuation mark, but there’s also an understanding that nothing is absolute.
I’m not saying the 2nd amendment interpretation is morally wrong, but as a piece of legal opinion it is a brown and steaming and comes out of cows, and I don’t mean the Isle of Wight Ferry.
Where one law interacts with another law, then there is a need for judicial opinion. The 2nd, however, is very clear. There are more ambiguous rules in Monopoly. It isn’t just ‘people have the right to be armed’, but this right SHALL NOT be infringed. It is probably the clearest law I have ever seen (aside from the interpretation of ‘people’). It is sad that Americans (as a nation, I’m sure there are reasonable individuals) seem unable to have a reasonable debate about the Constitution- especially the 2nd amendment.