In response to:

Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable

edbutmyfriendscallmeed Wrote: Nov 11, 2012 12:37 PM
he's right though, a lawsuit filed by the ag of oklahoma says the subsidys are only for state based exchanges, not the federal ones, its explicit in the law, it mentions nothing about fed based exchanges(the argument for that is the framers of this law, max baucus, wanted to force the states to set their exchanges up by enticing them to do so with federal money, at the same time punish those states that said no by not providing subsidys in fed exchanges).so then the irs pulls out a reg that says oh no, subsidies are for both state and fed exchanges. theres where the lawsuit comes in, irs just cant change the language or intent of the law, it has to go thru the congress to change by an amendment, but repubs wont budge on that.

President Obama has won reelection, and his administration has asked state officials to decide by Friday, November 16, whether their state will create one of Obamacare's health-insurance "exchanges." States also have to decide whether to implement the law's massive expansion of Medicaid. The correct answer to both questions remains a resounding no.

State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange. The Medicaid expansion is likewise too costly and risky a proposition. Republican Governors Association chairman Bob McDonnell (R.,Va.) agrees, and has announced that Virginia...