Over the past year, a number of Republican lawmakers have gravitated to the claim that there is a central flaw in President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Jumping aboard a lawsuit that has now made its way to the Supreme Court, they argue that a close reading of the bill prohibits the federal government from giving subsidies to those who purchase health insurance on exchanges that are run by the federal government, of which there are 34.
The question is whether this embrace of the lawsuit represents an epiphany or crass political opportunism. Because not long ago, many of these Republicans were publicly assuming the subsidies they now question were available to everyone, regardless of the exchange on which they shopped.
An August 2013 letter to then-Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius shows how Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) made this exact shift. Back then, Ryan declared these subsidies would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion -- an amount only possible if they were available nationally, not just in the 15 state-run exchanges in place at the time.
Another Example Of How Flimsy The Latest Anti-Obamacare Case Is (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/paul-ryan-obamacare-lawsuit_n_6580114.html)

Just how many people do Republicans plan to kill after they take Healthcare away!!!  45,000 never bothered them before.    They have no plan but Death

Jul 10, 2012 ·
"Republican Rep: I Don’t Think Someone Who Is Diagnosed With A Brain Tumor Should Have Health Care Provided"


They would kill their own

Rep. Alan Nunnelee Diagnosed With Inoperable Brain Tumor

The issue, remember, is one line in the ObamaCare statute that says subsidies shall be available only to consumers who buy their new health insurance on “an Exchange established by the State.” Thirty-four states refused to build their own exchanges, so the federal government went ahead and built Healthcare.gov for people in those states as a substitute.

The reason subsidies were limited to true state exchanges was to create an incentive for each state government to build their exchange themselves rather than forcing the feds to do it. It’s not just a semantic distinction, in other words. Subsidies were supposed to be restricted to state exchanges for a reason.

The Dems purposely worded the law as is to encourage states to build their own exchanges. Yes, the Dems were surprised that so many states didn’t build exchanges. But the fact is that law is worded in a specific way, on purpose. The law needs to be followed, or amended.

Under the law, exchanges established by the state have to be self-supporting as of 2015.

Everyone knows that the unAffordable Care Act is just one f’ing mess.

It just might finally force Republicans to own the consequences of their actual current stance on health reform, which is that they favor blowing up Obamacare and replacing it with nothing (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120847/repealing-obamacare-king-vs-burwell-would-be-immoral).

Obamacare is becoming more odious to more working Americans. Why do you think Republicans control both Houses of Congress? As more working Americans are pounded by the rising cost of this vile Obamacare the Republicans will strenghten their control of Congress and win the White House going away.

I have never known anyone to die because they did not have health care!

Sad how far the left will go in support of socialized, government mismanged cluster fuck that was literally shoved up our asses without the publics approval.

Just another example of the crass arrogance, mindless power grab that exemplifies this administration.

The worst, most incompetent and corrupted group of so called leaders this country has ever been up against.

I hope they all die very painful deaths and rot in hell for eternity.

Were there thousands of people dying on the streets prior to SOBamaCare?

What about all the people that HAD insurance and LOST it because of SOBamaCare? ? ? ? ?

The reason subsidies were limited to true state exchanges was to create an incentive for each state government to build their exchange themselves rather than forcing the feds to do it. It’s not just a semantic distinction, in other words. Subsidies were supposed to be restricted to state exchanges for a reason.

The Dems purposely worded the law to force states to build their own exchanges. Yes, the Dems were surprised that so many states didn’t build exchanges. But the fact is that law is worded in a specific way, on purpose. The law needs to be followed, or amended.



Blame the Democrats for their abusive insurance law....

Julianned67,
Isn't the Supreme Court about to hear/rule on an argument regarding the validity of subsidies, even though the law clearly states subsidies may only be paid to Residents of State who have set up exchanges?