The supreme court is arguing about semantics ! Semantics, one of my favorite topics. In oral arguments the solicitors are trying to convince the supreme court just what the meaning of a certain four words in the affordable care act actually mean. At least one of the esteemed judges has already stated that he doesn't think the intent of Congress was to deny anyone the subsidy. The language seems clear enough to me though, it says " through a state exchange. " If you acquire Obamacare through a state exchange you are entitled to a subsidy if you can not afford the coverage. It does not address what happens if you acquire that same coverage through a federal exchange. And therein lies the issue of semantics. Did the congress when passing this bit of legislation intend to punish those people that did not acquire coverage through a state exchange ? Was this an attempt, by congress, to coerce individual states into establishing these exchanges to satisfy the political agenda of the Democratic party and the President ? Or was it a simple case of semantics ? That is the real question being asked here, make no mistake about that. That is why the court is divided so sharply on this issue. So what the court intends to rule upon is intent !
Well, isn't that something. We now have one branch of government ruling upon the intentions of the other. The lawyers arguing over semantics. Semantics being used to mask the intentions of a written piece of legislation. A piece that being read by anyone with an understanding of the english language makes perfectly clear, through a state exchange. Where in that statement does it say federal government ? How do you get federal government out of that ? You start by saying the " state " is the federal government. Yes, we often say exactly that when we speak of the government as a whole. The thing is, in this situation, it is clearly the individual states that are being addressed. That is plain because whereas the federal government may indeed mandate health care coverage for every citizen, questionable on its' own grounds, the government cannot force individual states to establish health care exchanges ! Thirty four states choose to not do so in fact.
So let me see if I have this right. The government decides every citizen must purchase health care coverage. If they do not have healthcare coverage of any kind they will be fined. If they cannot afford healthcare coverage the government will provide a subsidy if, and this is important, you purchase it through a state exchange ! If your state does not have an exchange you are not eligible for the subsidy.
Now I am a member of congress and I have to vote on this legislation. Is this requirement for a state sponsored healthcare exchange, basically a partnership with insurance companies, being forced upon me ? If I do not agree with it the citizens of my state will not receive a subsidy should they need it. Ah, what to do.
Well the ruling party got this bit of legislation passed. This requirement was obviously overlooked by many in congress before it was signed. Or was it ? Is that what the congress intended ? But not congress really, by the party that drafted the legislation. Was this little provision an attempt to force those politicians that may disagree with the ruling party to comply ? Is that why those four words were not brought to the forefront of the discussion during the voting on the legislation ? Seems a bit far fetched to me, a little too much of a conspiracy. I do believe it was an oversight but an oversight that has caused a big problem. The ruling by the supreme court could affect the entire legislation. Those subsidies may have to stop ! If they do there will be those that can no longer afford healthcare coverage ! Never mind about those that can't afford it because there state didn't establish a healthcare exchange and therefore cannot receive a subsidy. A subsidy there tax dollars are funding ! That's right. I'm paying for your subsidy because you can not afford the coverage while I do not have coverage, receive an additional fine from the government for not having it because I am not eligible for the subsidy ! Now that is a plan !!!
Well, the supreme court will rule. Does the word State mean state ? What was the intent ? Intent is not the issue here, just read the words ! Nine Justices and four little words. Lawyers one and all. Gotta love it.
Well, isn't that something. We now have one branch of government ruling upon the intentions of the other. The lawyers arguing over semantics. Semantics being used to mask the intentions of a written piece of legislation. A piece that being read by anyone with an understanding of the english language makes perfectly clear, through a state exchange. Where in that statement does it say federal government ? How do you get federal government out of that ? You start by saying the " state " is the federal government. Yes, we often say exactly that when we speak of the government as a whole. The thing is, in this situation, it is clearly the individual states that are being addressed. That is plain because whereas the federal government may indeed mandate health care coverage for every citizen, questionable on its' own grounds, the government cannot force individual states to establish health care exchanges ! Thirty four states choose to not do so in fact.
So let me see if I have this right. The government decides every citizen must purchase health care coverage. If they do not have healthcare coverage of any kind they will be fined. If they cannot afford healthcare coverage the government will provide a subsidy if, and this is important, you purchase it through a state exchange ! If your state does not have an exchange you are not eligible for the subsidy.
Now I am a member of congress and I have to vote on this legislation. Is this requirement for a state sponsored healthcare exchange, basically a partnership with insurance companies, being forced upon me ? If I do not agree with it the citizens of my state will not receive a subsidy should they need it. Ah, what to do.
Well the ruling party got this bit of legislation passed. This requirement was obviously overlooked by many in congress before it was signed. Or was it ? Is that what the congress intended ? But not congress really, by the party that drafted the legislation. Was this little provision an attempt to force those politicians that may disagree with the ruling party to comply ? Is that why those four words were not brought to the forefront of the discussion during the voting on the legislation ? Seems a bit far fetched to me, a little too much of a conspiracy. I do believe it was an oversight but an oversight that has caused a big problem. The ruling by the supreme court could affect the entire legislation. Those subsidies may have to stop ! If they do there will be those that can no longer afford healthcare coverage ! Never mind about those that can't afford it because there state didn't establish a healthcare exchange and therefore cannot receive a subsidy. A subsidy there tax dollars are funding ! That's right. I'm paying for your subsidy because you can not afford the coverage while I do not have coverage, receive an additional fine from the government for not having it because I am not eligible for the subsidy ! Now that is a plan !!!
Well, the supreme court will rule. Does the word State mean state ? What was the intent ? Intent is not the issue here, just read the words ! Nine Justices and four little words. Lawyers one and all. Gotta love it.
No comments:
Post a Comment