Sorry, but that it's a major provision is demonstrated by the fact that 1) the SC took this case, and 2) we all cared about the outcome. And we cared because a defeat of the subsidies for the federal exchange would have, without question, acted to gut the entire ACA in those states - no individual mandate, no employer mandate, no way to assist the poor and middle class with the cost of their premiums, etc.Because you made it up.
The largest block of text behind ACA is Title 2: The Role of Public Programs, at almost 100 sections covering everything from every part of Medicaid, CHIP, various government Prescription Drug Plans, MACPAC assessment policies, and other Child Health Services. The second largest block is Title 3: Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Healthcare, also at almost 100 sections covering everything from Medicare, to Healthcare and Hospital evaluations, to Fee Schedule and Coding changes, to Payment Accuracy, to Charge Master regulations, to Medicare Part D plan changes.
I don't think either of us is a constitutional law expert so I don't see the point of arguing the fine points of constitutional law. But if you'd like to read the different opinions about this case, here's the SCOTUS blog's rundown of various opinions. What you'll find is some of the best experts discussing why, obviously, Roberts was correct, and other experts discussing why, clearly, Scalia was.Again, since you do not or will not understand, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to correct wording of legislation. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make legislation at all, it is there job to evaluate the challenge made against the law as passed. In this case, they politically made a decision and made a conclusion that the document itself does not stipulate.
They didn't make an "error." They interpreted the law differently than the dissent. Ultimately the majority decided that had Congress intended to provide subsidies ONLY state exchanges, they would have made that clear, not hidden the "intent" so well that no one, literally, in Congress mentioned or debated this outcome, nor did the states know of the consequences of deferring to the Feds when they made their decision about setting up the exchange. As one commenter quotes Scalia in another context, "Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes.”I am not suggesting the law does not stand, I am suggesting they made an error. 3 justices pointed out the error in dissent. And you are wrong on the powers of the Supreme Court. Their clear job is to interpret the law vs. challenge, not edit and repair what Congress did not handle well. The law as written was clear, today 6 justices expanded the definition of "State" to include the Federal Government.
Democrats and people like you have no concept of incentive and allowing people to decide what is best for them. Your one size fits all program like SS and Medicare are now trillions in debt but that doesn't bother you so you want another program just like them, Obamacare.
CBO: Repeal of ACA would raise economic output (per dynamic scoring) - PNHP's Official Blog
Repealing it would increase the deficit by over $100 billion (over $300 billion if you don't use the highly controversial GOP-mandated "dynamic scoring").
Why can't you accept a reality that doesn't favor your prejudices?
DEMs won't have that problem in 2016--as you saw today.
GOPs--who can run furthest to the right?
Can't wait to see Trump and nine other clowns on the Cleveland, OH stage August 6th .
Chemists Have Solutions .