But the bottom line is the dissent and you are arguing that Congress intended a result, on one of the biggest provisions in the bill, that received no debate in Congress - not one second - and that no one, including the states when they decided whether or not to establish exchanges, even knew about.
So Scalia is arguing Congress intended to write the language in such a way so as to not even put the states on notice that their decision to establish or not an exchange determined whether or not their residents got credits. I don't know how anyone can believe that.
He's keeping the Albatross alive and that means we get to look forward to another election cycle of Democrats avoiding ObamaCare like the plague....and then losing.
Hey, remember when the Democrats were going to turn Texas " Blue " ??
Lol ! We added more GOP seats. We're Redder than we were before.
However, I must make exception to your suggestion in support of your argument: "Just Google 'Obamacare high deductibles high premiums" .
Because quite honestly, I can Google "Sightings of BigFoot" (I just did), and find tons of positive corroborating sources - but he hasn't showed-up in my back-yard yet!
Last edited by jmotivator; 06-25-15 at 02:02 PM.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.