It is also as though the Supreme Court put a Trojan virus in the legislation with their decision to exempt states from the ACA Medicaid Extension.
March 27, 2015
By Sahil Kapur
...The case is about whether (click here) the Affordable Care Act permits the federally-run insurance exchange to provide subsidies to consumers. Crafted by Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler and Cato's Michael Cannon, it charges that the plain language of the statute confines the provision of premium tax credits to "an Exchange established by the State" -- and not the federal exchange, which serves residents whose states opted not to build one....
The decision is suppose to reach the public by June 2015. But, relying on the idea of a state exchange being the only option is not valid. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enlists the federal government to create an exchange...
The Federal Exchange was written into the law. I started to review my entries here during the ACA legislative process. I read the law from the 2000 pages of words. I know the federal exchange is in there and I remember stating, "Then the federal exchange can take over." Something like that. The lawsuit at the Supreme Court is written by two attorneys who have nothing else to do but create mischief. They wanted to dismantle the law and found a place where words were convenient to manipulate. Now with Roberts leading the charge they decided they could get away with it.
There is also the idea that the federal government is 'hands off' once the state have set up their exchanges. That is not the case. The law has a lot of regulation that dictates the details of the health care insurances and not just the exchanges. There is no relinquishing of power by the federal government.
March 27, 2015
By Sahil Kapur
...The case is about whether (click here) the Affordable Care Act permits the federally-run insurance exchange to provide subsidies to consumers. Crafted by Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler and Cato's Michael Cannon, it charges that the plain language of the statute confines the provision of premium tax credits to "an Exchange established by the State" -- and not the federal exchange, which serves residents whose states opted not to build one....
The decision is suppose to reach the public by June 2015. But, relying on the idea of a state exchange being the only option is not valid. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enlists the federal government to create an exchange...
The Federal Exchange was written into the law. I started to review my entries here during the ACA legislative process. I read the law from the 2000 pages of words. I know the federal exchange is in there and I remember stating, "Then the federal exchange can take over." Something like that. The lawsuit at the Supreme Court is written by two attorneys who have nothing else to do but create mischief. They wanted to dismantle the law and found a place where words were convenient to manipulate. Now with Roberts leading the charge they decided they could get away with it.
There is also the idea that the federal government is 'hands off' once the state have set up their exchanges. That is not the case. The law has a lot of regulation that dictates the details of the health care insurances and not just the exchanges. There is no relinquishing of power by the federal government.
