<p>Who is saying it was intentional? No-one. The suit says the law does not authorize subsidies without a state run exchange. It doesn’t seem to but the courts will decide.</p>
<p>Well, Flossy, Scalia is always talking about “intent” and interpreting laws “reasonably” rather than “strictly” or “sloppily.” Do you really think that it’s a “reasonable” interpretation to say that the Congress and the President intended to kill ACA with this one little sentence, which goes contrary to everything else in the law?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But in this case the plaintiff’s have the burden of showing that the law is unequivocal. If there is doubt as to what it means, then the courtsmust defer to the administrative agency charged with enforcement of the law. And that is very long and well-established doctrine, one that the conservative s on the Supreme Court have affirmed again and again. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then the law stands. ACA is not going to be tossed out on the basis of a typo.</p>
<p>It’s not about the law standing LasMa, it’s about what the law authorizes and it’s clearly unclear. We’ll see. IDK.</p>
<p>That one sentence may be unclear. Every other sentence in the entire law is anything but unclear. Context matters in the law, or it’s supposed to.</p>
<p>Flossy, at #15080 you said that no one is saying that the framers of the law intentionally put in the rule that people who buy on the federal exchange don’t get subsidies. But less than an hour before, at #15070, you said that the “crafters of the law… probably thought incentivizing states was a great idea.” Why are you saying no one said something, when you yourself said it?</p>
<p>The didn’t say they don’t. They just didn’t say they do.To clarify.</p>
<p>Clear as mud.</p>
<p>Then, Flossy, I will refer you what calmom said
just a few posts ago about ambiguity:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gosh, you all have been very chatty today. If the states that dont have their own exchanges lose their subsidies yet are still paying fed taxes that goes toward subsidies for those in states with exchanges, maybe the subsidies will be able to be in increased. 
</p>
<p>I’m tired of caring about the states and the people who hate ACA. We should cut them lose and let them fend for themselves. They can go back to the old system and then we won’t have to listen to their whining and complaining anymore. </p>
<p>emilybee: if the whining and complaining is so offensive to you may I suggest no returning to this thread. Also, please don’t get it shut down again.</p>
<p>And, anyone employed by or receiving pay from or covered by someone employed by or receiving pay from the federal government or one if it’s issues should be forced into an Obama Care exchange plan. Period!</p>
<p>No, I don’t want to stop reading and contributing to this thread. You can put me on ignore if you don’t want to read my posts. </p>
<p>Ditto</p>
<p>I am not going to say anything political but it is obvious to most that the fate of the law hinges on what happens next Nov and then in Nov of 2016. Everything else is irrelevant.</p>
<p>I think the fate of the law hinges on what Chief Justice Roberts wants to do…or rather, what he will want to do about two years from now.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4504852/senate-hearing-tax-credits-available-state-exchanges”>http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4504852/senate-hearing-tax-credits-available-state-exchanges</a></p>
<p>Video of Senator Max Baucus explaining that the tax credits are for state run exchanges only. The idea was to create an incentive for the states to build their own exchanges so the federal government wouldn’t have to. It was not a mistake or a typo. It was intentional. </p>
<p>If the IRS can change the meaning of the words in laws on way, then in a few years, they could change the meaning another way, depending on what the administration in power wants. At that point Congress becomes an impotent extraneous organization. </p>
<p>I don’t think the fate of the ACA depends on what happens to Halbig, if the Supreme Court ends up taking it. Even if they decide for Halbig, the blue state residents will still have subsidies. If the red states want to continue paying for the blue states’ Medicaid, and start paying for their subsidies too-- well, OK, if you insist, red states, we’ll take your money. </p>
<p>Let me make it clear: I don’t think it would be GOOD if people in red states were denied subsidies. But I don’t think it would break the law, either. States who wanted to “establish” their own exchange could do it trivially, by buying a domain name for their exchange, putting up a splash page and redirecting to the feds. States who didn’t want to establish their own exchanges could continue paying the subsidies for the states that did establish exchanges.</p>
<p>Fang, I’m concerned that if only 15 states have the subsidies (I think it was 15 states that have exchanges), that’s not enough to support the entire system. Wouldn’t it be way out of balance somehow? I confess I haven’t thought deeply about what would happen.</p>
<p>ETA – What about Oregon? They tried to have their own exchange, but for various, most technical reasons, couldn’t make it work and decided just to forget it and go with the federal exchange. Would low-income Oregonians be thrown to the wolves just because the state had incompetent technical people building their exchange?</p>
<p>You make a good point, Cardinal Fang. The Democrats in Congress could just say, “We’d be happy to fix this problem, as long as the Republicans agree to vote in favor of the law with no other changes.”</p>