Paul Krugman: Is the Supreme Court going to f*ck us again?

[Cyrano]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/opinion/paul-krugman-the-latest-frivolous-attack-on-obamacare.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

... (I)t now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an ... obvious typo.

snip

Last week the court shocked many observers by saying that it was willing to hear a case claiming that the wording of one clause in the Affordable Care Act sets drastic limits on subsidies to Americans who buy health insurance. It’s a ridiculous claim; not only is it clear from everything else in the act that there was no intention to set such limits, you can ask the people who drafted the law what they intended, and it wasn’t what the plaintiffs claim. But the fact that the suit is ridiculous is no guarantee that it won’t succeed — not in an environment in which all too many Republican judges have made it clear that partisan loyalty trumps respect for the rule of law.

snip

So what’s the problem? To receive subsidies, Americans must buy insurance through so-called exchanges, government-run marketplaces. These exchanges, in turn, take two forms. Many states have chosen to run their own exchanges, like Covered California or Kentucky’s Kynect. Other states, however — mainly those under G.O.P. control — have refused to take an active role in insuring the uninsured, and defaulted to exchanges run by the federal government (which are working well now that the original software problems have been resolved).

But if you look at the specific language authorizing those subsidies, it could be taken — by an incredibly hostile reader — to say that they’re available only to Americans using state-run exchanges, not to those using the federal exchanges.

snip

States like California that run their own exchanges would be unaffected. But in places like New Jersey, where G.O.P. politicians refused to take a role, premiums would soar, healthy individuals would drop out, and health reform would go into a death spiral. (And since many people would lose crucial, lifesaving coverage, the deaths wouldn’t be just a metaphor.)

snip

So let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Judges who support this cruel absurdity aren’t stupid; they know what they’re doing. What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters. And what we’ll find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. "What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters"

the key sentence.

[valerief]

36. Isn't that the motto of the GOP?

[NRaleighLiberal]

40. that's my view, for sure.

[historylovr]

58. I think it's,

"Take what you can, give nothing back."

[yeoman6987]

2. A lot of court cases are lost or won based on a typeo

What I hope comes out of this is that politicians fully understand what they are passing. They are in the job at most 100 days. Lets put out a good product. How many would be fired over a typo? Quite a few depending on what the error was.

[geek tragedy]

4. Yes, that's much more important than

the tens of thousands who will die and the millions who will live in constant fear.

[unblock]

6. but courts don't just say hah! there's a typo, throw it all out --

they look at other factors. they look at other provisions, they look at the intent (if it's clear) and they look at the impact. in the case of contracts, they even look at who drafted it.

if everything i'm hearing about this facts of this case are correct, then, even with this court, i have a tough time thinking that they would determine that the individual federal tax benefits were intended to be dependent on state acceptance of the medicare expansion.

moreover, i don't think roberts would allow his controversial decision upholding the case previously over a very consequential matter to be upended over a matter of trivia. not saying he was proud of the earlier decision or that he's a fan of the aca, but he took a lot of heat over it and it makes him look serious and legit to do that sort of thing. if he goes along with this silliness and guts the law, he just looks like a cowed buffoon.

[Helen Borg]

12. Roberts will do exactly that!

In my view, he upheld the case previously only to appear like a moderate, knowing too well that this would come up later on. And now he is gonna kill it.

[RufusTFirefly]

20. +100000! Agree totally. He may even take aim at the scope of the Commerce Clause while he's at it.

The Right absolutely HATES the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

[alc]

91. what was the intent?

There is reason to think the intent was to get states to create state exchanges since their citizens won't get subsidies on the federal exchange. (i.e. from contemporary quotes of policy experts and the explicit wording of an alternate bill)

Since both readings make sense (it's a typo/mistake or the literal reading is right) it should be up to the legislature, not the courts to fix it. I'd prefer not to have 5 people able to change a law from the literal reading when the literal meaning has a rational explanation and a majority of congress want the literal reading. It wont' be a popular view on DU, but it I think it would be a dangerous precedent to say the supreme court can make that change.

[unblock]

92. i don't have the answer. some cases require an a hearing and careful weighing of competing facts

but among them will be that it seems like at least a couple of rather odd screw-ups, if the law was originally intended to provide individual tax breaks to be available only to those in states which accepted the medicare expansion and to deny them to individuals on the federal exchange. and then, if that had been the original intent, for the obama administration to then just go ahead and provide those tax breaks to everyone.

so in order to conclude that the intent really was to be rather discriminatory against taxpayers from state to state, as you said, to encourage states to create state exchanges, then you kinda also have to believe that the obama administration then decided to say, screw it, we're giving the tax breaks anyway, thereby undermining the incentive for the states to set up their own exchanges.

as i said, the court will need to weigh many more facts than just what we're pointed out here, and i don't claim to know all of them. but based on the few facts i have available, i maintain that they'll have a tough time gutting the law.

[Rstrstx]

95. As I've been arguing in another thread, it looks pretty simple

The section in question is from section 36b of tax code 26. The direct quote for the part for people who qualify for a tax credit is that they are "...enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (note they don't say Section 1311, but hey it's not like we're splitting hairs)

OK, so let's go see what Section 1311 of the ACA says:

From section b: "Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an ‘‘Exchange’’) for the State that...."

From section d (this is the kicker): REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

OK, so now we have a definition of what an "Exchange" is. Great, it's been defined for us right here in 1311. It's something each State shall do, and by definition is something established by a State. There was really no need for the tax code to insert "established by the State" since it's already included in the definition of an Exchange and therefore redundant.

Now let's go to Section 1321 of the ACA, the part that deals with the naughty states that don't establish an exchange (like they were directed to do):

...the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notforprofit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

So basically the Secretary can set up an "Exchange" for a state, the definition of which was defined in Section 1311. And Section 1311 has made it clear what an Exchange is, it's an entity established by the State.

Thus the Secretary has therefore fulfilled the requirements of establishing an exchange eligible for a tax credit because Section 1321 gives her the ability to establish such an Exchange (per 1311) that the tax code requires.

If you don't see this as clear cut then at a minimum you should definitely see it as ambiguous, which is the sole test a government agency has to demonstrate when issuing guidelines from laws that don't explain something in a clear-cut manner.

Anyone who rattles off to you "blah blah blah ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE CAN'T EVER MEAN ANYTHING ELSE - THE END!!! blah blah blah death to Obamacare" is full of shit and just blabbering a right-wing talking point from someone who hasn't read the nuances of the ACA or case law.

[stillwaiting]

7. Many times it's not a typo. Big business literally WRITES our legislation. nt

[former9thward]

23. Lawmakers do not write legislation.

Staff lawyers do. Most lawmakers do not even read legislation. They just have a short summary of it. No member of Congress has read the ACA. It was 904 pages when passed. Subsequent regulations interpreting the law run 11,000 pages. Do you think any member of Congress or for that matter anyone in the U.S. has read all 11,000 pages? I don't.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/23/affordable-care-act-pages-long/3174499/

[ReRe]

39. Congress needs an...

... "ACA for Dummies." Most of them don't write legislation, let alone read it. Lobbyists are the ones that write the legislation, and in this particular instance the Insurance Corp. and Pharmaceutical Corp. lobbyists wrote it. I've watched C-Span deep into the night and early hours of the morning as they debate & vote on large bills that had only been released 24 hours prior. As to whether any of them have read the ACA front to back by now?
I have a sneaky suspicion we'd all be appalled if we knew the answer to these questions.

[LeftInTX]

38. Is it a typeo, type or typo? (The irony in your reply)

[yeoman6987]

53. Such a contribution to the discussion

[LeftInTX]

59. I thought maybe you had done it on purpose to illustrate a point.

I agree my comment it not much of a contribution and is shallow and kinda snarky.

This is a very intense and involved topic. It involves what the law literally states, how a "reasonable" person will interpret it, and how the 5 "unreasonable" conservative justices will punch holes in it.

After they gutted the Voting Rights Act, which is part of the constitution, I'm just not very hopeful. All the logic in the world aside, the court seems to be able to twist things to meet their needs (OK now I'm a total Debbie Downer)

[lonestarnot]

41. No, don't most rules of the ct say clerical error is an excuse for the error?

[safeinOhio]

3. There wasn't even a typo

in Citizens United?

[StevePaulson]

37. Money = Speech ---- Duh

I have no money, so I have no representation.

Where have you been?

Our government represents the people that
pay for campaigns, and no one else.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

The reason Republicans hate the ACA is because it takes a tiny amount of money
from the "haves" and spends it giving medical care to the "have nots" and that
is against everything they stand for. Redistribution.

They don't care how many die because they can't see a doctor......

[meaculpa2011]

5. Dear Professor...

it was not a typo.

Whether you're for or against there is little doubt that when legislation contains the words "state exchanges" numerous times and when legislators conduct recorded interviews describing their intent on the matter, also numerous times, the term typo does not apply.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. a) At the time that the law was written, states were obliged to set up exchanges and offer medicaid.

b) The law makes clear that if the states fail to implement their exchange, the federal exchange would be a proxy.
c) What about the District of Columbia? Was it lawmakers intent that residents not get subsidies?

[Hoyt]

30. I agree. Even this Court can't, or will not, contort this into something that guts ACA.

The intent of the ACA is clear.

[Yo_Mama]

56. DC was defined as a state for this law. So that doesn't help.

I don't know.

[Cyrano]

8. The very fact that the Court accepted this case

may be an indication of where they're headed. The five that gave us Citizens United may well be looking to gut Obamacare. Their dickishness knows no bounds.

And if they do gut it, what do we do then? My guess is, nothing as usual.

[Orsino]

10. Leaving no Congressional fingerprints on the body...

...the Roberts bag men could do away with the ACA.

[Eric J in MN]

34. Obama will probably tell states that they can...

..."establish" exchanges by renting their states' portion of the federal Obamacare website for free.

In states which don't have state exchanges, every Democratic governor will take that option. Republicans in blue states will take that option (unless the governor plans to run for president). Republican governors in red states will deny their citizens the subsidies.

[Yo_Mama]

47. Or they just want to settle the matter because of the extreme disruption involved.

But the plain language of the law doesn't appear to authorize the subsidies. So I don't know. I tend to think they are going to uphold, but there's some precedent against it.

[hughee99]

49. Yes, I remember when these same a-holes killed the ACA when they ruled against the

individual mandate... oh wait, that didn't happen. They actually put a decent bit of effort into their legal gymnastics to justify it. "Obamacare" isn't going anywhere. There's too many private companies making too much money from it.

[Blanks]

68. That's the key isn't it...

They're talking about government subsidies to privately owned insurance companies.

If they're gonna throw something out, I'd be surprised to see them throw out the thing that financially benefits the insurance companies.

If anything, this should pit the insurance companies against conservatives - if the conservative court throws it out.

[yeoman6987]

9. Thanks for all the replies!

You are all right as always.....I wish I were a Professor. Lol.

[Gman]

11. Should they overturn the ACA on this technicality

it would be tantamount to a formal declaration of war by the right wing beholden politicians on the people and all that implies. I consider it currently a "cold" war. This would formalize it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. I'm not especially worried.

The moneyed interests would prefer that the subsidies not be threatened. And besides, if you follow this train of thought down the rabbit hole to it's illogical conclusion the entire ACA violates the equal protection clause.

[djnicadress]

14. This all obama's fault

Obama has spent six years trying compromise with the republicans when all they ever wanted to do destroy him and obama keeps coming back for more. What has he gotten out of nothing he lost congress to these a**holes and they are about too away his one only achievement. obama has two years left and i want to see they guy i thought i was voting for 2008 i want to see his FDR. what does he got to loose.

[L0oniX]

18. Obama is rich enough.

[djnicadress]

22. reply

not exactly sure what meant by that. FDR was rich didn't stop him

[L0oniX]

24. This is 2014 not the late 1930's.

[djnicadress]

27. you need read up on history if you think there is a big difference between 1930s and today

.

[L0oniX]

28. LMFAO

[pnwmom]

42. It's as much your fault

because you voted for him. Supposedly.

Actually, it's not the fault of either of you. This has nothing to do with Congress trying to compromise with Republicans.

The people in Congress who drafted the bill made a drafting error. It was their "fault" but with an historically normal Supreme Court -- one which took the intent of Congress into account -- it wouldn't matter.

[TheKentuckian]

80. Shit, if they followed intent the mandate would be gone but Roberts re imagined it into a tax

despite Congress shouting from the rooftops that it was not a tax.

The whole game is to leave us with the mandate and little else.

[pnwmom]

84. The intent was to have a mandate.

SCOTUS followed the intent of the drafters in that case.

[TheKentuckian]

86. Are you really trying to claim they were not swearing up and down that it wasn't a tax?

[pnwmom]

89. They didn't care what it was as long as there was a mandate. n/t

[Cha]

90. And, there it is! The "It's all Obama's fault".. detailing the insidious cluelessness of the ODSers

[heaven05]

15. Evil RW intent

this way comes, for the next two years at least. With the total disarray of the Democratic Party and DLC leadership, yes, we the progressives, liberals and willfully ignorant and racist republicans, tea party kool aid dispensers and libertarians will be f...... time and again and again and again. Those last three don't care, I think they are beginning to like it.

[NoMoreRepugs]

16. If this comes about it may be the wake up call that changes everything

Millions of those now covered who may lose their insurance or be required to pay much higher premiums may finally understand that voting R and against their own self interests does in fact have consequences. At least its a possibility.....

[Eric J in MN]

35. Republican governors screwing people out of Medicaid expansion didn't hurt them.

Republican governors screwing people out of Obamacare subsidies won't hurt them, either.

[L0oniX]

17. Ain't nothing ...like being rat fucked by the SCOTUS.

[Octafish]

26. I especially like how they made George W Bush pretzeldent.

The guy has done wonders for fascism. He really has.

[joeglow3]

21. RTFD - Read the Fucking Document

This is something my boss says because they reality is the legal document drives everything. In business, it doesn't matter what people intended or meant - the legal document supersedes all. Sadly, I could see the same thing happening here.

[pnwmom]

43. Your documents at work aren't subject to Supreme Court interpretation.

And a single document at work probably doesn't run thousands of pages long.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of many bills with mistakes in language, and usually tries to determine the intent of Congress.

This isn't an ordinary business.

[joeglow3]

50. Actually, in a prior life, a client had a contract that was over 25,000 pages

But, that was a government contract.

I am not saying they cannot interpret it. If anything, our Supreme Court has shown they can and will do anything.

Generally speaking though, the judicial branch is the one to interpret the laws, so lets hope they do their job.

[truebluegreen]

74. That might be true, if this SCOTUS

actually gave a crap about the law. The majority have amply demonstrated that they do not. They will decide based on ideology with a soupcon of regard for appearances and probably more for monied interests (remember that Roberts voted to uphold the law, while adding the poison pill of making Medicaid expansion optional--a really astute call: didn't look so partisan but weakened and complicated the implementation of the law and delivered a slap to a traditional Democratic constituency).

[jwirr]

25. Well given that they did not hesitate to help buy the election with Citizens United.......

[djnicadress]

29. obama need flat out say if aca gets struck down i will have no choice but push for medicare for all.

if obama said the the base would so fired up for 2016 and it make Conservatives wonder if obamacare is all that bad

[pnwmom]

44. That wouldn't be a threat. They don't care if he "pushes" for Medicare because

they control Congress.

[djnicadress]

66. in future they might

.

[TheKentuckian]

85. There will be no time in the remainder of his Presidency that he will be able to do shit about

single payer. He can't even get a committee to even take it up.

Threats must have some credibility to have any affect.

[SoapBox]

31. The Five Terrorist Dictators...

Are now emboldened by the election.

Hang on to your hat, this will be just the beginning of bringing everything the Baggers and KKKoch Kreeps want.

[zonkers]

32. If they mess with health care, at least Dems will will show up in 2014.

But if they also messed with voting machines, we will be super fucked once again.

[Eric J in MN]

33. Less than a typo.

Suppose you hand a friend $20, and say, "Get us a pizza from Pizza Hut. Or you can go to Domino's."

The reasonable interpretation is that Domino's would be another place to buy a pizza.

A ridiculously literal interpretation would be that the friend can get a pizza from Pizza Hut or go to Domino's for nothing.

The ACA says that people can get subsidies from state exchanges. And that that federal exchanges will be created when states don't create their own.

The reasonable interpretation is that people can get subsidies from federal exchanges.

A ridiculously literal interpretation would be that people can get subsidies from state exchanges or use federal exchanges for nothing.

[pnwmom]

45. I misunderstood you at first.

Last edited Mon Nov 10, 2014, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I think we agree.

When the bill was written, the intent was that the states would WANT to set up their own exchanges because they would want local control. And it was anticipated that everyone would get the subsidies. It was later that they realized that most states wouldn't set up their own exchanges. At that point they should have deleted the word "state" or added the word "federal" -- and they forgot. But the context of the bill, that runs thousands of pages long, was that everyone would get subsidies, because it's financially unworkable otherwise.

[Eric J in MN]

52. My post was a paraphrase of a court opinion upholding subsidies. They made the pizza analogy. NT

NT

[pnwmom]

55. One court that was dominated by Rethugs. Most other rulings have taken the opposite position. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

61. The pizza analogy is pro Obamacare analysis by an Obama appointed judge.

Pro subsidies = Pro Obamacare

The idea is that one thing can be substituted for another.

Federal exchanges providing subsidies can substitute for state exchanges providing subsidies. People can get subsidies regardless of whether their state has state exchanges or uses the federal exchanges.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/07/judge-interprets-obamacare-with-pizza-order-192621.html

[pnwmom]

70. And that pizza analogy makes complete sense.

“If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order. That is this case.”


The person has asked for pizza either from Pizza Hut or from Dominos, and he mentions that he wants ham and pepperoni on his pizza from Pizza Hut -- of course he also would want a ham and pepperoni pizza from Dominos.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Great analogy.

In this case, immediately prior to the friend's arrival, Pizza Hut's management decided to stop selling pizza. In other words, buying from Dominos wasn't a choice on the friend's part, but the only way he could comply with your directive to buy pizza.

Were it not for the Supreme Court's ruling that states could elect to not offer expanded medicaid or implement a state exchange, this whole conversation would be moot.

Part of me is indifferent about the ruling. If the court rules that the federal exchange can't provide the subsidies, a whole lot of red state voters are gonna get their asses kicked come tax time because their elected officials refused to set up their own exchanges.

Pissed off voters = catalyst for change.

[Eric J in MN]

69. The Supreme Court

...made Medicaid expansion optional by saying that the federal gov't needs to keep giving Medicaid money to states which don't update the eligibility standards.

However, the ACA itself says that states don't have to create an exchange, and that the federal gov't will create one for states which don't. That wasn't the Supreme Court's decision.

The political impact of the Supreme Court letting state gov'ts stop their citizens from getting Obamacare subsidies would be minimal.

With regard to Medicaid expansion, maybe the issue helped Terry McAuliffe (D) get elected governor of Virginia, but I'm not aware of the issue affecting other state races.

So Obamacare subsidies may be a factor in one future governor's race, but people won't be kicking out a lot of Republican governors over it.

[Pantagruelsmember]

46. I suspect Krug underestimates

the money involved here. Health insurers and providers are doing very well under ACA and they will exert pressure to sustain those profits. They don't want to lose 10-15 million paying customers overnight.

"Follow the money."

[harun]

64. Why they won't change it. ^^

[3catwoman3]

48. The easy, short answer...

...to Krugman's question is, of course, "Of course."


That is their specialty and their MO.

[badtoworse]

51. The short answer is yes. The Repubs will get their own bite at the apple.

If the SCOTUS reverses the Appellate ruling, a legislative fix will be required to keep the ACA from collapsing. Given how far the program has gone and how many people are relying on it, I don't believe the Republicans will let it fall apart. That would be a loser on multiple levels, so I think they'll take the position "we'll fix this problem, but...". They will then lay out a laundry list of changes they want to make to the program to make it more palatable to their constituencies.

Unless I'm mistaken, the SCOTUS announcement that they would hear the appeal came after the election results were known. By the time the SCOTUS rules, the Republicans will have taken control of the Senate and will be in a strong negotiating position. It's likely that some of the changes will not sit well with our side, but we may wind up with a program that actually enjoys bipartisan support. That may be a good thing, especially if the alternative is losing everything.

The ACA passed without a single Republican vote. This may be Roberts' way of forcing changes to the program that will broaden its support and end the political divide over it. ETA: It seems unlikely to me that the SCOTUS would have taken the appeal just to affirm the Appellate ruling.

[AndyTiedye]

93. Repubs Won't Fix It, They Can Just Blame the Democrats for the Mess

The repiglickin media will give them all the help they need.

[Puzzledtraveller]

54. When you adopt RW laws this is what you get.

Medicare for all, end of discussion.

[badtoworse]

57. The ACA passed without a single Republican vote.

Are you saying Democrats are RW?

[Wella]

60. I think the poster was referring to the fact that the ACA was originally a Heritage Foundation idea

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/

[badtoworse]

62. Maybe, but if so, he's leaving a lot open to speculation.

[Wella]

63. I notice that people don't back up assertions here

And it's odd, because the info is out there and easy to find.

[TheKentuckian]

87. They are. They'd be to the right of about any governing party in the west.

Center/right, at best.

I doubt this is what the poster was talking about but rather let's say the Heritage of this law but yes on any standard other than the TeaPubliKlans and many of the retrogrades in the middle east our party is right wing.

[napkinz]

67. K&R!

nt

[B Calm]

71. The people voted against affordable health care. I'm still

Banging my head against the wall over that. . .

[Eric J in MN]

75. Democrats will still represent more people in the Senate

...when they have fewer seats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/republican-senate_n_6104926.html

[Vattel]

72. Even Scalia beleives that typos or obvious misspeaking should be ignored.

What is the relevant part of the text here?

[Eric J in MN]

77. It isn't literally a typo.

One section of the ACA says that tax subsidies are available on state exchanges.

Another section says that the federal gov't will create exchanges when states don't.

Democrats interpret that to mean that the federal exchanges substitute for state exchanges and also provide subsidies.

Republicans interpret that to mean that the federal exchanges do nothing.

[Vattel]

78. So it doesn't say that tax subsidies are available ONLY on state exchanges?

[Eric J in MN]

81. This is the section which Republicans seized on

(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT
.—The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect
to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
‘‘(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or
more qualified health plans offered in the individual market
within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s
spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of
the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an
Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month
for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with
respect to the taxpayer, over
H. R. 3590—96
‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of
the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household
income for the taxable year

There is no section of the ACA saying "Only state exchanges can be used for subsidies" or saying "Federal exchanges can't be used for subsidies."

[Vattel]

82. Thx for the info.

[Eric J in MN]

83. You're welcome. NT

NT

[roamer65]

73. So if a state in the federal exchange sets up their own, they keep the subsidy?

If so, we get California and Kentucky to help other states with the software and getting it up and running.

[Eric J in MN]

76. Or a state could post a link to the Obamacare website

...and the citizens of the state would get the subsidies.

The problem would be with Republican governors who don't want citizens to get subsidies to buy health insurance.

[TheKentuckian]

88. They don't fail to have exchanges because they can't locate a developer

They don't want their people to have it at all.

[glinda]

79. yes because they now totally can all of the time....geeeze of course.

[Cha]

94. Good fucking question, Paul Krugman

Mahalo Cyrano

[napkinz]

96. kick

nt