Supporters of The Affordable Care Act,or ObamaCare, are trying desperately to defend against the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the subsidies are illegal by claiming that the language of the bill is poorly drafted and ambiguous.
That is laughable and has been proven wrong time and time again by the defenders of ObamaCare themselves.
As detailed in a previous article on this site, it is amusing to watch Professor Jonathan Gruber from MIT claim his statements about the subsidies being intentional was “just a mistake.” His remarks have gathered nationwide intention. He too is claiming that the language of ObamaCare was poorly drafted. In his remarks he stated, “It’s just simply a typo, and it’s really criminal that this has even made it as far as it has.”
If that is true, why did it not come in any other court cases or matters until now?
The Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land for over four years now. Obama was a law professor. It went through the legislative process on Capitol Hill, where it was reviewed by many, many very competent and very intelligent lawyers. At the Office of Legislative Counsel, where legislation is drafted for Congress, the first question asked is, “What do you want to do with this?”
That is asked for the overall intent of the legislation and its sections.
It was obviously asked about the subsidy section for coverage bought through health insurance exchanges. It came up time and time again in debate about ObamaCare. The subsidies are a critical part of The Affordable Care Act. Without the subsidies, ObamaCare will collapse. It is absurd to claim that it was a typo!
That is why the language is clear and any claims that it is not are attempts from the supporters of The Affordable Care Act to keep it from imploding.