This is what Republicans and others are fighting over and which the SCOTUS will decide.
But the law—as written—offers subsidies only to people who buy plans “through an Exchange established by the State.” In other words, if you bought a plan through the federal exchange—and more than five million people did in 2014—you’re not eligible for the subsidy.
Clearly providing subsidies only to state-run exchanges was not the intent of the Law. That simply is illogical. If the writers of the Law intended that, why would the words not read “by a State” or “by each State.” How, in this context, can there even be “the State?” If the intent was to encourage states to establish an exchange as some argue, why are the words buried in thousands of pages of text and not publicized?
But what is a State? Well, here is one definition. “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” So clearly the State in the context of the Law can be the Country, rather than any individual state.
Republicans have a plan to replace Obamacare; it’s a joke. The idea that costs can be contained by insurance companies competing is just silly. Insurance companies don’t provide health care, premiums are not health care costs. Only about 15-20%, many times less, of total premium is not claim costs and therefor subject to competition. Besides, there has been competition for years with not much success.
For the millionth time, the problem is not insurance companies‼️‼️‼️
The Republican plan seeks to leave the popular provisions of the ACA and remove what they object to like required coverage; it can’t work that way.
Following are excerpts from the Republican plan from the opinion page of the Wall Street Joutnal.
First, make coverage more affordable. Any state that uses our off-ramp would be able to opt out of ObamaCare’s insurance mandates. These coverage requirements are driving up costs, so eliminating them would empower individuals and families to choose from a wider range of plans that fit their personal needs and budgets.
Our proposal will also allow participating states to opt out of ObamaCare’s burdensome individual and employer mandates, allowing Americans to purchase the coverage they want.
We would also force insurers to compete for your business, rather than force Americans to buy a government-approved health plan under the threat of IRS fines. Let people buy insurance across state lines. Stop frivolous lawsuits by enacting medical-liability reform.Let small businesses band together so they get a fair deal from insurance companies. Our committees and nonpartisan analysts alike estimate that these proposals will cut costs and raise quality across the board.
At the same time, we would set up other safeguards for patients. We would allow parents to keep children on their plan until age 26. We would prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.We would protect people with existing conditions. And we would guarantee renewability for people already enrolled in a plan.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
“Why did it take someone scouring the law to raise the issue? Are the crafters of the law that stupid? ”
I think that is the question being asked of the SC judges. I am not so sure of the answer as you and Wilson seem to be.
Like I said before, I won’t be surprised at the outcome whichever way it goes.
LikeLike
We will see in a few months I guess.
LikeLike
Careless but not stupid legislators – anyone with a brain knows that our president wanted affordable healthcare for all Americans – the United States is the only industrialized nation on earth without single payer health insurance – how does a case involving (perhaps) a “typo” get to the Supreme Court? – the answer: George Dumya Bush left office after starting two unwinnable wars on a credit card, a deep recession which we are just now climbing out of and a severely conservative supreme court that has gutted voters’ rights and we are mired in another gift from the dummy If another Republican is elected in 2016, we will endure yet another economic downturn and another war – wake up Americans
LikeLike
“Plaintiffs argue that Congress intentionally restricted payment of subsidies to state exchanges to induce states into setting up exchanges so their citizens could receive subsidies.
The government argues that the law intends for federal exchanges to be treated identically to state exchanges (and therefore qualifying individuals are entitled to subsidies whether or not their state has set up an exchange), or, in the alternative, if the law were ambiguous, that the regulation at issue was a permissible interpretation of the law.”
I think the plaintiffs are correct. What will the nine fellows in black robes say?
LikeLike
Smell the coffee, Vince. “The state” can mean the United States of America”. Do you get that? In addition, the entire intelligent population of this country knows the intention of the sponsors of the PPACA bill. Join the population.
LikeLike
Very well stated, Mr. Quinn. The most clear and concise analysis that I have read. As for poster Jack B. “How can anyone divine that what the congress meant is different than the clearly written text they passed as law says in multiple places.” Read again what Mr. Quinn wrote. You didn’t understand his logic. Also, the authors of the bill are still alive. Ask them what they meant to say.
LikeLike
Mr. Wilson… “Also, the authors of the bill are still alive. Ask them what they meant to say”
.Jonathan Gruber, one of the chief architects of the bill had this to say.
“I guess I’m enough of a believer in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an Exchange, the politicians in their state are costing state residents hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that they’ll eventually throw the guys out. But I don’t know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is: Will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an Exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens?”
His statement is pretty clear and unambiguous.
LikeLike
But if that was the intent all along why didn’t they publicize that so the people who they thought were getting short changed were well aware and could put pressure on their politicians. Why did it take someone scouring the law to raise the issue? Are the crafters of the law that stupid?
LikeLike
And here is the rest of the story which you omitted:
One heavily-scrutinized part of the ACA reads that subsidies should be given to healthcare recipients who are enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State”. Some have read this to mean that subsidies can be given only in states that have chosen to create their own healthcare exchanges, and do not use the federal exchange, while the Obama administration says that the wording applies to all states. This dispute is currently part of an ongoing series of lawsuits referred to collectively as King v. Burwell. In July 2014, two separate recordings of Gruber, both from January 2012, surfaced in which he seemed to contradict the administration’s position.[7] In one, Gruber states, in response to an audience question, that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits”,[32] while in the other he says, “if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.”[33] When these recordings emerged, Gruber called these statements mistaken, describing them as “just a speak-o—you know, like a typo”.[32]
LikeLike
“Clearly providing subsidies only to state-run exchanges was not the intent of the Law. That simply is illogical. If the writers of the Law intended that, why would the words not read “by a State” or “by each State.” How, in this context, can there even be “the State?” If the intent was to encourage states to establish an exchange as some argue, why are the words buried in thousands of text and not publicized?”
How can anyone divine that what the congress meant is different than the clearly written text they passed as law says in multiple places. I agree that anything can happen when SCOTUS gets involved and I won’t be surprised by their decision either way.
For a little extra reading on the argument see this
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-king-v-burwell-a-simple-case/
LikeLike
Interestingly even this SCOTUS Blogger is wrong. He writes:
“Because Section 36B is the section that governs when it comes to limits on these credits and subsidies, the question then, is what did Congress intend when it drafted Section 36B. The text provides the answer, and an unambiguous answer it is. The phrase “Exchange established by a state under Section 1311” leaves nothing to the IRS’s imagination.”
The Law does not say “by a state” it says “by the State” which to me is a big difference.
LikeLike