To me, the article I am about to report on represents the grasping of straws, but it is an interesting thought.<\/p>\n
Yesterday the Washington Post<\/a>\u00a0posted an article about a possible vulnerability in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).<\/p>\n The article reports:<\/p>\n Case Western Reserve\u00a0University\u2019s Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute\u2019s Michael Cannon argue in a new paper<\/a> that any federally-established health insurance exchange does not have the authority to dole out health insurance subsidies. Those subsidies are important: They are the $800 billion in tax credits meant to subsidize coverage for low- and middle-income Americans.<\/strong><\/p>\n If that is true \u2014\u00a0and it\u2019s worth noting that\u00a0the Obama administration, along with a number of legal scholars, argue that it is not \u2014\u00a0it would significantly curtail the Affordable Care Act\u2019s ability to do what it\u2019s supposed to do: \u00a0make health care affordable. And that puts Section 1401 at the center of a burgeoning debate over what Congress meant when it wrote the\u00a0Affordable\u00a0Care Act, and how that effects its ultimate implementation.<\/strong><\/p>\n Whoops! I think the only viable answer to Obamacare is repeal and replace, but this is definitely an interesting twist in the saga of this legislation.<\/p>\n Please follow the link above to read the entire article. I have no idea if this is a viable argument, but it does show how hurriedly and carelessly this law was written.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" To me, the article I am about to report on represents the grasping of straws, but it is an interesting thought. Yesterday the Washington Post\u00a0posted an article about a possible vulnerability in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). … Continue reading