I find it disconcerting that some have no more respect for rule of law and separation of powers that they would try to persuade the courts to “re-write” a law by pretending it means (or assuming it was an oversight) something other than what is says; assuming that it really means all exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Although disheartening, this is not unexpected from those that feed at the government trough.
The law is clear and the court should make it clear that it is not their role to add to or subtract from existing legislation to make it fit an agenda. They should uphold the original language as if it means what it says, then kick it back to the congress to grapple with. The law can be amended by the congress if that is the will of the people’s house. But we all know that progressives don’t care about rule of law or constitution when it gets in the way of advancing their agenda.
The deep roots of the moral hazard that are driving this are obvious. Our entire healthcare financing system depends on a complex layer of third-party reimbursements because the billing cycle is hinged to it. Furthermore, in the case of many hospitals their dependence on revenue from claims submitted to government payers is do or die. The way the financing system works, it guarantees mutually assured economic destruction if the payer contracts aren’t valid. Who gets left out of this mess? The patient that needs care. They have become an inconvenient pawn required to submit a claim.
Money should follow people. If tax subsidies and tax credits are assigned to individuals rather than “insurance” policies, then we wouldn’t be in this mess. We wouldn’t have to lobby the feds for “our fair share” of the pie. Crony “CRAPITALISM”, to quote Dr. Keith Smith, at it’s best. What a mess. An avoidable mess!
Law360, New York (November 04, 2014, 5:31 PM ET) — Eighteen state governments and the American Hospital Association on Tuesday asked the D.C. Circuit to rule that consumers shopping on federal Affordable Care Act exchanges should be allowed to reduce their premiums with tax credits, saying that to decide otherwise would be to deal an unfair blow to the ACA.
The D.C. Circuit had ruled in July to deny tax subsidies for health care exchanges that aren’t solely established by state governments, but agreed to hold a rehearing in November. In the July decision, GOP-appointed judges ruled that the ACA’s text limits the availability of subsidies by explicitly authorizing them only “through an exchange established by the state.”
The state governments and the AHA said in their Tuesday amicus briefs that this interpretation of the ACA hinges on a technicality, yet it would cause real and immediate…
View original post 598 more words