I've heard the SCOTUS decision to hear King v. Burwell" reported on NPR and other left outlets a couple of times. Their reporting is basically: "It is completely unclear why 4 judges would agree to hear this case. The INTENT of the law is OBVIOUSLY clear -- everyone gets subsidies!" ... followed by some thinly veiled assertions that the "4 judges" are probably politically motivated.I'm reminded of Asiana Flight 214 that clearly INTENDED to land safely on runway 28L at SFO, but did not. In the real world, "intent" and a couple bucks might get you a cup of coffee.
Oh, and BTW, about 5.5 million Americans have signed up for coverage in states where the Feds run the exchanges. And the vast majority of them, 87 percent, have received subsidies. ... now THAT is a figure that doesn't get much coverage! Taxpayers are paying a significant amount of the bribe to get 87% of the BOcare users to use this "successful" program! "Successful" at taking money from the pockets of earners and giving it to people that vote TP!
On its face this argument appears both plausible and reasonable. But it’s not. For openers you can be sure that the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel, which drafted Obamacare and which is made up of skilled lawyers whose independence and impartiality is above question, would have brought to the attention of the Senate Finance Committee from which the bill emerged the policy discrepancy concerning the section that placed the limitation on the subsidies. Had the language been a drafting error, it would have been rewritten. But it wasn’t."Intent" is notoriously hard to determine in laws -- in fact, SUPPOSEDLY, the SCOTUS interprets the "intent of the framers" in the Constitution. For more modern laws, the rule is "Congress can write laws that say what they mean". They are mostly lawyers after all, and they employ PLENTY of lawyers to write the laws in any case.
So why does this law clearly say that ONLY states that set up exchanges get subsidies?>
Jonathan Gruber is an MIT economist who helped design Obamacare. After the law passed he consulted with numerous states concerning the establishment of their exchanges. Here is what he said in January of 2012: “What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”Isn't that a big surprise? The BO admin and TP congress (at the time BOcare was passed) were doing their best to follow their standard rule of "reward political friends (with tax money) and punish political enemies". It didn't work very well ... 37 out of 50 (or 59 if you are BO) states declined the bribe. Talk about a "program that is working well"!
As I've covered WAY too many times, this kind of nasty politics is exactly why the framers wanted the Federal government to be VERY limited -- and up about "the income tax" in 1913, it was . After the fall of the current US, hopefully future generations will realize that taxes MUST follow "equal protection"! In fact, if people want to be free, ALL LAWS have to follow equal protection so the government isn't in the business of the coercive picking of winners and losers -- thus prohibiting standard Chicago crony "reward your friends and punish your enemies"!
King v. Burwell is nothing less than preserving the constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers. The Obama administration will soon urge the Court to enable it to deem the plain language of a statute passed by Congress to mean what it does not say. That is a precedent that should send a chill down the spine of all Americans.Most likely the left leaning judges on the SCOTUS will rule in BO's favor, and most Americans will see this as "a waste of time" -- because we no longer value freedom, and are just fine with TP rewarding it's political friends and punishing it's enemies.
Therefore, we are not a free people.
'via Blog this'