Supreme Court to hear King v Burwell

[Knotbuyinit]

The court has the opportunity to reaffirm the principle that the law is what Congress enacts, not what the administration or others wish Congress had enacted with the benefit of hindsight. Granting tax credits to those who need help purchasing health insurance may be a good idea, and may have bipartisan support, but the IRS lacks the authority to authorize such tax credits where Congress failed to do so. The PPACA only authorizes tax credits for the purchase of insurance on exchanges established by the State.

 

[delldude]

What can one say?
 

 

[southwind]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4[youtube]

 

[signals]

What can one say?
 

Too bad if it is already affecting you, you are still screwed.

 

[delldude]

The court has the opportunity to reaffirm the principle that the law is what Congress enacts, not what the administration or others wish Congress had enacted with the benefit of hindsight. Granting tax credits to those who need help purchasing health insurance may be a good idea, and may have bipartisan support, but the IRS lacks the authority to authorize such tax credits where Congress failed to do so. The PPACA only authorizes tax credits for the purchase of insurance on exchanges established by the State.

 
I think someone is/was pursuing the fact that John Roberts was complicit in changing the ACA by stating it was a tax when it was not. SCOTUS has no power to do this either, which also makes it unconstitutional.

 

[MCI transplant]

And the fact that the full weight of obamacare still hasn't been implemented!------ But soon will! Hold on to your nickers! The ride is going to be historical!

 

[Knotbuyinit]

I think someone is/was pursuing the fact that John Roberts was complicit in changing the ACA by stating it was a tax when it was not. SCOTUS has no power to do this either, which also makes it unconstitutional.

SCOTUS already heard the prior Obamacare case where the Obama administration was threatening to throw millions of people off Medicaid unless the states agreed to Medicaid expansion. Threatening millions based on how the law was written is nothing new and given that attempt by the Obama administration to already do that, it's hard for them to argue intent that the law would never threaten millions.

 

[EastUS1]

SCOTUS already heard the prior Obamacare case where the Obama administration was threatening to throw millions of people off Medicaid unless the states agreed to Medicaid expansion. Threatening millions based on how the law was written is nothing new and given that attempt by the Obama administration to already do that, it's hard for them to argue intent that the law would never threaten millions.

 
"...and given that attempt by the Obama administration to already do that, it's hard for them to argue intent that the law would never threaten millions." I'd think so as well. This should prove interesting, to say the least.