They wrote it that way because they wanted the states to setup their own exchanges. You setup an exchange and your residents get off-sets. You make us (the feds) set one up for you and “no money for your residents and they will hate you and elect Democrats”. It didn’t work out that way, too many states said stuff it and so they decided to give credits to users of the fed exchanges too. As other said, they are just making it up as they go now.

What good is this insurance if it makes us pay for stuff we don’t need and costs most Americans more?

The fight initiated by the Democrats was supposedly over affordable and Universal coverage. Now that it’s been shown that the ‘affordable’ ideals were a political mirage your side has backtracked to the fact that it has increased the number of people and issues covered in a redistributive method on stark political lines.

The left wing has made healthcare more expensive for a lot of Americans and you guys are spiking the football because people are complying with a Mandate to have insurance that costs them more.

Congratulations on your victory in placing more costs on us who aren’t part of your current group of the “politically blessed”

Sigh.

Stated differently, what is the role of the honest lawyer (you) in lawless times?

Law is good, but it is not primary–it rests on something deeper.

This must be very disconcerting to you as our republic slips into war.

God Bless.

t

The results of the inquiry by the Government Accountability Office are evidence of still-imperfect work by specialists intended to assist new insurance customers and government contractors hired to verify that coverage and subsidies are legitimate. The GAO also pointed to flaws that linger in the marketplace’s Web site, HealthCare.gov.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-undercover-investigation-signs-up-fake-applicants-for-aca-coverage-subsidies/2014/07/22/743a04fa-11ce-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

The losers are people who were already responsibly providing insurance for themselves; and people with serious conditions who have found that their Obamacare policies don’t pay for the treatments or doctors or clinics that their old policies covered.

The winners include people like:
* a couple of Ivy League graduates who have chosen to spend all their time doing “art” instead of earning a living.
* a woman who just didn’t want to work full-time so she dropped her full-time job with insurance as soon as she could get insurance paid for by other people.
* a law student who was already getting cheap insurance but now he gets it entirely at other people’s expense so he’ll have more money for beer and entertainment.
* illegal aliens.

“Conservatives rooting for millions of people to lose their health insurance”

Conservatives rooting for millions of people to lose their pay for their own damn health insurance, the way they pay for their car insurance, home & contents insurance, pet insurance, travel insurance, liability insurance, life insurance, funeral plan insurance, etc.

“Not subsidizing everyone’s health insurance” is to “Denying everyone health insurance” as “Not subsidizing my dogs’ pet insurance” is to “denying my dogs’ medical care”.

If you can’t get other people to pay your bills, you’ll just have to prioritize your outgoings and work to pay them yourselves.

There were no typo(s) or ambiguities in the law. Ask Senator Nelson.

“Conservatives rooting for millions of people to lose their health insurance” is a shallow cerebration authored by a demagogue. Alinsky Rule No. 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Your intended derision is not only a drag, it’s shopworn and whimsical. Ad hominem in the realm of Law is not a sign of intellection.

Having said that, this ended up in court because the Feds created their own exchanges that were outside the text of the law. So while I agree that “The law would be upheld”, the question then becomes, “What law do we uphold?” (This will be true even if the court ultimately upholds Obamacare. )

(In other words, hogwash)

Where Congress uses the phrase “exchange established by a State”, in distinction to the phrase “exchange established under this Act” used elsewhere in the statute, there is absolutely no ambiguity.

“Exchange established by a State” does not include an “exchange established by the Federal government.” Except in an Orwellian world.

This is a wholly illegitimate, and purely political, decision.