Who knew that so many of us were so wrong! When we read the wording of the ACA and when we read and listened to one of its chief architects (Gruber), we were all "lead" to believe that insurance subsidies were only available to citizens of states that setup their own health exchanges. The IRS decided that that was an issues as 36 states told the Feds to stick the ACA where the sun don't shine, and so decided to give the subsidies to everyone eligible (and quite a few who were not) regardless of if they got insurance from a state exchange or a federal one.
That resulted in a court case to in affect force the IRS to obey the law "as written". Well the Supreme Court (the same one that decided the ACA requirement to purchase health insurance is really a tax and not a product purchase) has decided that those words as written did not really mean what they said. They meant the opposite.
Does this mean that we will not need to send all dictionary proofs through the court so that they can affirm what the definitions of all words are?
To what use is law if the words they are written with are as shiftly as sand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment