The Ghost is pro Single Payer. I've said a few times that the proper and constitutional way that the federal government to cover everyone, which is and was entirely possible, was to simply amend medicare/medicaid to all citizens and legal residents (illegal immigrants get proper and humane emergency treatment and then a one way ticket home).
But no. Instead we got a 200+ page law that nobody read before voting on that was designed to provide customers to healthcare corporations with the federal government acting as enforcer and collection agency. Something that NEVER should have happened.
So it turns out that since nobody read the law, they didn't notice that little piece of text that said:
“through an exchange established by the state.”
Someone on This Week actually said that sentence didn't mean what it said. Seriously. I think the reason that fellow could even move his mouth to say such nonsense about the law, is because too many people on the left thik that laws mean whatever they think it means at the time rather than what it actually says. For example when the charges were brought against Zimmerman, I pointed out the problem with murder because it
requires intent. There was ample evidence in the offering that provided reasonable doubt as far as intent is concerned and therefore Zimmerman
should have been charged with criminally negligent homicide with a focus on the totality of the event.
People actually said that I must "be on Zimmerman's side" because to them, the fact that I understood the law and the concept of reasonable doubt, that somehow to be on Trayvon's side I had to
disregard what the law says. You don't convict someone of a crime because you think "eh, it's close enough to X". Judges give explicit instructions as to what the law is and how a jury is to look at evidence. Why? Because the language of the law matters.
Another example, a man was tried for shooting up skirt videos in Mass. He was acquitted because the relevant law did not cover what that man did (the mechanics). So even thought the state
wanted and perhaps
meant that such behavior be deemed criminal, the law
as written did not support such a contention. Judges are required to follow
the law not what they
think or
wish the law to be. They cannot legislate from the bench (even thought not a few have been getting away with just that). Legislating comes from a legislative body. Not the executive or the judicial bodies. Which brings us back to the ACA.
The language is very clear to those who understand the English language (something that is apparently becoming a problem....). Lets look at the sentence:
“through an exchange established by the state.”
In this sentence "an exchange" is the object. "Established" is the action. That object is established by "the state". The state is the party that does the action (establishment) of "an exchange" that whatever is gone "though".
Simple English. In the US the "state" or "states" always refers to one of the 50 states. When talking about the federal government, it is referred to as The Fed. Don't believe me? Look at
the full text of the ACA
Do a search for "state". It shows up 75 times in the document. Here's a relevant example:
Subtitle C—Medicaid
SEC. 1201. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR STATES.
And
AMOUNT OF INCREASE.—Notwithstanding subsection
(b), the Federal medical assistance percentage for a State that
See? Fed. State.
Another:
f the number of percentage points by which—
‘‘(I) such Federal medical assistance percentage for
the State, is less than
Now look at the actual paragraph that contains the quote in question:
In the event that allotments provided under sec- tion 2104 are insufficient to provide coverage to all chil- dren who are eligible to be targeted low-income children under the State child health plan under this title, a State shall establish procedures to ensure that such children are screened for eligibility for medical assistance under the State plan under title XIX or a waiver of that plan and, if found eligible, enrolled in such plan or a waiver. In the case of such children who, as a result of such screening, are determined to not be eligible for medical assistance under the State plan or a waiver under title XIX, the State shall establish procedures to ensure that the children are enrolled in a qualified health plan that has been certified by the Secretary under subparagraph (C) and is offered through an Exchange established by the State under sec- tion 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes of eligibility for premium assistance for the purchase of a qualified health plan under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and reduced cost- sharing under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, children described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to be ineligible for coverage under the State child health plan.
See? No mention of the federal government.
The only way this goes in favor of the administration is if a majority of the justices buy the [not]legal argument that the congress "meant" something other than what was written or if they wish to legislate from the bench. If they don't buy the "meant to" argument and decline to legislate from the bench, it should be a unanimous decision in favor of the plaintiff. Of course that would mean that either the law would have to be amended, and we know what kind of fight that would be; or the states would have to set up exchanges, particularly if there is a public outcry from those who lose coverage that technically they should have have gotten.
Of course alllllll of this could have been avoided had Obama and his crew passed single payer while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress. But we know how that went. But now we'll hear them whine about Conservatives this and Republicans that when the total failure was theirs.
