Are you happy about the Supreme Courts decision on King v. Burwell

[Torie]

If somebody could find me one article or statement by somebody contemporaneous to when the law was being debated and passed that stated they intended the law to work in such a way as to deny subsidies to states that hadn't established their own exchanges, I'd give the argument a lot more credence. Just one example. That's all I ask.

It would be nice to know how and why the language was written the way it was in the first instance.

[Torie]

If somebody could find me one article or statement by somebody contemporaneous to when the law was being debated and passed that stated they intended the law to work in such a way as to deny subsidies to states that hadn't established their own exchanges, I'd give the argument a lot more credence. Just one example. That's all I ask.

It would be nice to know how and why the language was written the way it was in the first instance.

Not sure. I would find it credible if an early draft of the law included something like the incentive mechanism proposed by the King plaintiffs, and some of the wording got missed when it was getting revised to provide the federal exchange as a backstop. But again, nothing contemporaneous that I've seen that says the "no subsidies for non-state exchanges" incentive was intended by the authors of the law.

The author Gruber said it was intended to be there to coerce states into setting up exchanges. Then the lawsuit came down, and he did a 180 degree tack, and said it was a typo, and his remarks an "oral typo."  Apparently, as Pelosi said, nobody read the law before it was voted upon (except Gruber as it were), and thus we have no relevant legislative history on this. So apparently the "intent" was to write the law language to coerce states, and then after for some states the coercion failed, claim that the law language actually meant nothing at all. That strikes me as the ultimate in having your cake and eating it too.

Do you think the above characterization is unfair?

[Torie]

Here is some more about it. It was included, and then dropped in the negotiations between the Senate and House. That leaves the question as to why it was dropped.

[Torie]

Here is some more about it. It was included, and then dropped in the negotiations between the Senate and House. That leaves the question as to why it was dropped.

Dunno. The analysis you linked to is certainly biased, wouldn't you say? It could have been that in the merging the drafters omitted language that they thought was redundant. Without a link comparing the original language and the new language (which it's kind of silly that such link isn't in the article you posted, right?), I'm just relying on their word as to what the language specified.

The fact remains that up until this lawsuit, absolutely nobody involved treated the law as though it were supposed to work the way the King plaintiffs said it was explicitly intended to work. Not the states, not the federal government, not the CBO, nobody.

Oh, I think what was said was true enough. The language was probably dropped. But if you can find more information, great. I just did a google. Maybe it was dropped by accident, maybe by design, but only by Gruber's design and his henchmen, or whatever. This is what happens when things are rushed. It's a mess.