In response to:

Exactly What Is Max Baucus Saying Here?

Joe760 Wrote: Oct 22, 2012 12:17 PM
Jost was absolutely correct that Baucus' remarks have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. Whatever administration initiates that portion of the legislation will do with it whatever they please. Should the implementation be litigated the Courts, including the Supreme Court, have a history of finding 'legislative intent' wherever they will, or not finding it, whichever the case may be.

At a packed Cato Institute briefing on Capitol Hill yesterday, Jonathan Adler and I debated ObamaCare expert Timothy Jost over an admittedly wonky issue that nevertheless could determine the fate of ObamaCare: whether Congress authorized the IRS to subsidize health insurers, and to tax employers and certain individuals, in states that refuse to establish one of ObamaCare’s health insurance “exchanges.”

I want you, dear Cato@Liberty readers, to help us get to the bottom of it.

Adler and I claim that Congress specifically, repeatedly, and unambiguously precluded the IRS from imposing those taxes or issuing those subsidies through federal “fallback”...