Seems some other areas will be having trouble with BO's special package. At the same time as people will.
Meanwhile, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems (NAPH) President and CEO Bruce Siegel expressed concern over the ruling's "potential to limit Medicaid expansion, which could strand millions of our most disadvantaged people without access to basic health care coverage." According to Siegel, the ruling, "at first read," appears to "give the states the ability not to do the expansion."
Similarly, many hospital executives said they still are analyzing the court's ruling on the expansion, the Journal reports. News outlets on Thursday reported a surge in hospital stock prices following the Supreme Court's announcement. By closing bell, HCA stocks were up by 10.8%, Tenet Healthcare stocks were up by 5.5%, and Community Health Systems stocks were up by 8% (Weaver, Journal, 6/28; AHA release, 6/28; NAPH release, 6/28; Kamp, "Marketbeat," Journal, 6/28; Mathews, Journal, 6/29; Kutscher, Modern Healthcare, 6/28 [subscription required]; Barr, Modern Healthcare, 6/28 [subscription required]).
Drugmakers: According to the Wall Street Journal, the decision to uphold ACA means drugmakers—which generally supported ACA's passage—will face tens of billions of dollars in fees and prices when the insurance expansion takes effect in 2014. Scott M. Melville—president and CEO Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), which represents over-the-counter drug manufacturers and distributors—in a statement following the ruling reiterated his organization's opposition to an ACA provision removing over-the-counter medicines from the flexible spending arrangements" (Rockoff, Journal, 6/28; CHPA release, 6/28). •Medical devicemakers: Mark Leahey—president and CEO of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA)—in a statement said the decision “adds new urgency to repealing" a controversial 2.3% excise tax on devicemakers. Although he noted that MDMA members had not experienced any “windfall” from the reform law, he said, "this misguided policy has already led to job losses and cuts to research and development" (MDMA release, 6/28).....snip~
If you don't have a good work ethic, or have no idea what a work ethic is then your'e probably better off in California or Colorado or Illinois.
If being dependant on someone other than yourself is something you aspire to, then you'll probably hate it here.
" If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else ? "
I said "one of the biggest" and no one would argue that the credit/subsidy mechanism that makes insurance affordable to the poor and is costing $trillions over time is a minor provision. You're splitting hairs for some reason.We are talking about a 800+ page legislative effort here and it is bold of you to suggest tax credits and subsidies was the biggest provision of the bill.
If it was a drafting error, it's clear the majority made the correct decision.Moreover, the real impact here is passing a legislative effort so large in scope that it has inherent mistakes. That is on Congress to repair, not the Supreme Court to change up to satisfy a government request to ignore the original text.
It's not the "merit of Scalia's argument." The idea that the provision was intended to be written in such a way that NO ONE understood the practical impact of not setting up an exchange is laughable, absurd, ridiculous.That is the merit of Scalia's argument. "The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government. That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so." ACA had language in it to deal with States that did not set up an exchange, so you would think it would have been natural for ACA to account for that in dealing with Tax Credits and Subsidies. But some 7 times in the document it explicitly says "Exchange established by the State."
Again, unless you want to cite some law here, mistake ==> majority made the correct decision.No matter if it was legislative mistake or an afterthought argument to account for something not going to plan, the remedy is the same. On the merit of the case the government should have lost, forcing Congress to handle the mistake. But, the courts decided to go along with an argument that specifically goes against the wording of ACA. You cannot avoid that.
We aren't making progress. 6 justices disagree with you, and the law stands. That decision was sound. The dissent's interpretation was arguably also legally sound. The SC job is making a decision when the law isn't clear and there are competing interpretations, and they made it - that's how the system works. Bottom line is simple decisions with a clear right/wrong answer don't get to the SC.You would have a point (perhaps) if we were talking about once sentence in the document, some false explanation for ACA, exchanges and the States. But ACA clearly did account for States that could not or would not establish an exchange, and then they failed to account for that in the 7 places in the document that says nothing about tax credits and subsidies set up by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
No matter what was said on the floor of Congress, no matter what Obama said at the mic ACA legislation had a mistake. It is on Congress to remedy, not the courts to do so in their place.