When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, "the language is clear," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told a news conference on Tuesday.
"I hope the Supreme Court can read English. I'm sure they can," Reid told a reporter who asked about the legal challenge to Obamacare.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether people who bought their health insurance on the federal exchange can get the same tax credit subsidies given to people who enrolled through exchanges established by the states.
"The Supreme Court shouldn't have taken up this case," Reid said.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether people who bought their health insurance on the federal exchange can get the same tax credit subsidies given to people who enrolled through exchanges established by the states.
"The Supreme Court shouldn't have taken up this case," Reid said.
"Right now, we have about 17 million people that benefit from Obamacare, about 7 million people with subsidies. And I am so happy with these people getting health care, many of them for the first time in their lives. And that doesn't count all the many people who are now getting health care for the first time with Medicaid."
Reid refused to speculate on what will happen if the Supreme Court ruling eliminates subsidies for people enrolled in the federal exchanges.
"I think the language is clear. I hope the Supreme Court can read English."
Critics of Obamacare also hope the Supreme Court can read English, because the plain language of the law states that only exchanges "established by the State" may offer subsidized health insurance. Most states let the federal government set up their exchanges for them.
In petitioning the Supreme Court to take their case, the plaintiffs quoted Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, who said in 2012: "[I]f you're a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. … I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”
The plaintiffs noted that “Congress did not expect the states to turn down federal funds and fail to create and run their own Exchanges.”
But 34 states did refuse. So the Internal Revenue Service patched the law by issuing a regulation that extends subsidies to people who purchased their health insurance through the federal exchange.
Reid refused to speculate on what will happen if the Supreme Court ruling eliminates subsidies for people enrolled in the federal exchanges.
"I think the language is clear. I hope the Supreme Court can read English."
Critics of Obamacare also hope the Supreme Court can read English, because the plain language of the law states that only exchanges "established by the State" may offer subsidized health insurance. Most states let the federal government set up their exchanges for them.
In petitioning the Supreme Court to take their case, the plaintiffs quoted Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, who said in 2012: "[I]f you're a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. … I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”
The plaintiffs noted that “Congress did not expect the states to turn down federal funds and fail to create and run their own Exchanges.”
But 34 states did refuse. So the Internal Revenue Service patched the law by issuing a regulation that extends subsidies to people who purchased their health insurance through the federal exchange.
If the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration, it will be up to Congress to continue the subsidies that help millions of people afford their health insurance. Republicans have indicated they will do so temporarily as part of a larger health care overhaul -- an overhaul that President Obama and other Democrats will reject.
President Obama, a former constitutional law professor, has said the law should be interpreted based on its "intent."
"And under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed, not just by liberal Democratic judges, but by conservative judges like some on the current Supreme Court, you interpret a statute based on what the intent and meaning and the overall structure of the statute provides for," Obama said on June 8.
Two days after President Obama said laws should be interpreted based on their intent, Health and Human Services Secretary told Congress the Obama administration is implementing Obamacare "as it was intended."
"And under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed, not just by liberal Democratic judges, but by conservative judges like some on the current Supreme Court, you interpret a statute based on what the intent and meaning and the overall structure of the statute provides for," Obama said on June 8.
Two days after President Obama said laws should be interpreted based on their intent, Health and Human Services Secretary told Congress the Obama administration is implementing Obamacare "as it was intended."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/harry-reid-i-hope-supreme-court-can-read-english?
No comments:
Post a Comment