On September 3, 2014, Jeffrey Toobin, wrote an article entitled, “Will Textualism Kill Obamacare,” http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/will-textualism-kill-obamacare, that shows the prevalence of dishonesty in the Obamacare, misinformation.
In his article, in reaction to a court finding that subsidies are NOT available in states without their own exchanges that have signed up Obamacare participants through the Federal exchange ,Toobin criticizes textualism which he describes as a view that “holds that courts should interpret laws based solely on their own terms, and not on the basis of the intent of the legislators who create the statute,” http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/will-textualism-kill-obamacare.
Because Obamabuck subsidies are one of the features that has at least bought the support for the law by those people eligible for the entitlement, fierce reaction by the Administration has resulted in Democratic defense of subsidies for all, relying as Toobin does on the “legislative” intent somehow gleaned that anyone signing up for Obamacare through either a state or federal exchange should receive subsidies.
Yet like most of what’s being sold as the PPACA, this does not appear as clear as Democratic spinners would say.
Read the following from the legislative document, “HELP Health Reform Legislation-Section by Section Narrative (7-15-09):
"A “participating state” requests that the Secretary establish an initial Gateway once all
necessary insurance market reforms have been enacted by the state into law, and other requirements have been met.
In a state that does not act to conform to the new requirements, the Secretary shall establish and operate a Gateway in the state after a period of six years, and such state will become a “participating state.” Until a state becomes either an establishing or participating state, the residents of that state will not be eligible for premium credits, an expanded Medicaid match, or small business credits. (§ 3104)"
Until a state becomes either an establishing or participating state, the residents of that state will not be eligible for premium credits, an expanded Medicaid match, or small business credits, “HELP,” 2009.
This text appears under the subheading, “State Participation,” and to me clearly indicates that subsidies were NOT intended to be provided to signups who are residents of nonparticipating states.
I am against the entitlement as I’ve discussed in two of my posts. On 9/9/2013, in my post, “What’s the ONE THING you’d Change in Obamacare?” I argued against subsidies, mostly because I view them as an entitlement for a specified population that masks insurance premium costs to consumers because for that small group Obamabucks are available (http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2013/09/whats-one-thing-youd-change-in-obamacare.html).
On 7/22/2014 in my post, “Obamabucks for Health Insurance through the Federal Exchanges: It’s not in the PPACA,” I argued in favor of compliance with the language excluding subsidies for signups through the Federal Exchange (those people in States without their own exchange).
I am also against the fast-and-loose approach that has Democrats using government to not only implement the law in ways unintended (if you like your policy you can keep it) but CHANGING the law simply by whim after shoving it down our throats. It seems that Toobin has expanded the notion of textualism excluding anything that doesn’t support his view of the way things should be.
