Obamacare's Intent? Just Read the Law
By the end of next month, the Supreme Court will have released its decision in King v. Burwell, the case that will determine whether subsidies will be available for insurance purchased through a federally operated exchange. The plaintiffs say this is impermissible, because the law provides for subsidies only for policies purchased on exchanges "established by the state", probably inserted in the law as an inducement to states to set up exchanges. The defenders of the status quo argue that this is insane, because they'd never structure the system so as to risk having needy people lose subsidies, and because no one who actually worked on the law remembers having any such intention.
To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.
If you believe that you may have received this message in error please let us know.
- Trump's Judgment Is Debatable. His Sanity Is Not.
- Never-Trumpers Never Agree About Anything Else
- What Trump Got (Half) Right in Asia
- GOP Surrenders Cherished IRS Scandal at Last
- Converging on Tax-Reform Nonsense
- Too Many Laws. So Much Ignorance. Something Has to Give.
- Bitcoin Has an Unusual Relationship With Volatility