Why the Supreme Court Should Kill ‘Obamacare’

[TheKentuckian]

86. What it says now is exactly what it is, Jeff.

I'm stuck on your second point, the law doesn't provide ramping to the exchanges at all. Cutting the tax benefit simply shifts more of the costs to the consumer. If your employer provides coverage you are required to take it and you are barred from the exchanges. All ramping efforts were beat back.

You are hoping that employers will give up the control and drop coverage and I see ZERO indication of any such intent. The resistence to cutting out the employers was intense in the movers and shakers level and every effort was repelled and even scoffed at openly.

The dots do not connect in the legislation and evaluating a law as it is written is far from an unfair way to judge it.
If the ingredients are flour, rice, and corn it is unreasonable to expect fried chicken to be the outcome.
Faith is for spiritual matters and personal relationships not laws, politics, and certainly not politicians.

This idea is decades old and designed with a purpose and it isn't some winding path to single payer, not even over decades.

It is not hopeless but it is clearly not the intent of the law. For any serious hope, employers will have to drop coverage en mass and that is not the plan right now and it will be some years to see enough change of heart to turn the tide.

My focus is on what is there because it is what is there. Obsession is not defined by primary focus on the observable universe.