Federal judge: No, the ObamaCare statute doesn’t limit subsidies to state-run exchanges

posted at 3:21 pm on January 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

This is the last, best chance O-Care opponents have of firing a magic bullet at the law to bring down the whole scheme. (John Roberts deflected the last one, as you might recall.) The basics are simple. Section 1311 of the law authorizes the states to develop their own ObamaCare exchanges. Section 1321 says that, if a state declines, the feds can step in and develop their own exchange for consumers in that state instead. That’s how we ended up with the technological marvel that is Healthcare.gov. The rub comes in Section 1401, which authorizes tax credits, i.e. premium subsidies, for anyone who’s in “an Exchange established by the State under 1311″. Wait a sec — does that mean that only people enrolled in state-run exchanges get subsidies? If people enrolled in the federal exchange get them too, why doesn’t Section 1401 say “an Exchange established by the State under 1311 or the federal government under section 1321“?

There’s a simple explanation, say critics like Jonathan Adler: Congress intentionally limited subsidies to state-run exchanges to give the states an incentive to set up their own exchange. The feds didn’t want to build Healthcare.gov; they’d prefer that each state deal with this themselves. But since they can’t force states to do the federal government’s bidding, the best they can do is tack on monetary inducements to get them to play ball. That’s where the subsidies come in. If you’re a governor who’s on the fence about whether to build an exchange or not, the prospect of sugar from Uncle Sam for your constituents helps sweeten the pot. Read Adler’s post about this from December 2012 citing a colloquy that Max Baucus, the so-called architect of ObamaCare, had on this subject with John Ensign while the law was still being drafted. That’s the proof that Congress intended to distinguish between state-run exchanges and the federal exchange on subsidies. It’s not a drafting error or the result of Congress, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, passing the bill only to find out later what’s in it. The subsidies restriction for states was always supposed to be in there.

Not so, says Judge Paul Friedman, a Clinton appointee. The overall legislative history of O-Care leaves it unclear whether Congress intended this or not, one colloquy between two members notwithstanding. (In fact, he ignores what Baucus said.) When the meaning of the statute is in doubt, the court has to look to other provisions to glean intent and to the overall purpose of the statute. Would Congress really have passed the Affordable Care Act while leaving millions of consumers in dozens of states without access to subsidies to make their new coverage more affordable?

The federal subsidies are critical to the law because they reduce monthly premiums, in some cases drastically, for the vast majority of people buying coverage on new online insurance marketplaces. Starting this year, most Americans must have health insurance or face a fine…

District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman sided with the federal government, saying that the phrase was out of context. “One cannot look at just a few isolated words … but also must at least look at the other statutory provisions to which it refers,” Friedman wrote in his 39-page opinion…

“Congress did not mean to exclude residents of two-thirds of the states from premium tax credits,” said Timothy Jost, a consumer advocate and health law professor at Washington and Lee University. “Judge Friedman had little trouble finding that the statute clearly authorizes premium tax credits to be granted through federal exchanges.”

Here’s the opinion. The key bits start halfway through page 26 and run for 11 pages. On the core question, the difference between a state exchange under Section 1311 and a federal exchange under Section 1321, Friedman says that there’s no meaningful distinction at all. Don’t think of Healthcare.gov as a “federal exchange”; think of it as a collection of state exchanges that are being run by the feds for the state.

fr1fr2

That idea, of the feds acting on behalf of a state rather than setting up their own qualitatively different exchange mechanism, is completely rejected by Adler and his co-author Michael Cannon. “If a state chooses not to dance,” Cannon wrote in November 2012, “Section 1321 doesn’t instruct the federal government to step inside (read: commandeer) the state’s dancing shoes. It directs the federal government put on its own dancing shoes, and to follow all the dance steps listed in Title I. Since the language restricting tax credits to state-created Exchanges appears in—you guessed it—Title I, federal Exchanges are bound by that restriction.”

The rest of Friedman’s opinion is essentially a battle with Adler et al. over inferences that can be fairly drawn from the text of the ObamaCare statute and the legislative history about Congress’s intent. If you take all of Section 1312 as literally as Adler takes the part about state exchanges, argues Friedman, the federal exchange wouldn’t be able to enroll anyone since there’s no specific separate definition of what makes someone a “qualified individual” eligible for federal enrollment — and yet, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants dispute that the feds can enroll people. If you want more tea-leaf-reading about congressional intent along those lines, dive on into Friedman’s opinion. The larger point here, though, I think, is that federal judges will be reluctant to nuke America’s new insurance regime based on what’s arguably a drafting error. To have a district court tell millions of people that they’re SOL when it comes to Uncle Sam keeping his promise to help them pay for their expensive new insurance, you need evidence of congressional intent that’s overwhelming, no matter what the text of the statute itself says. At least, if you’re in front of a Democratic appointee you do.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So what’s left of the actual law, versus the Court and the President’s rewriting of it unilaterally? Roberts rewrote the entire basis of the law, Obama’s rewritten all the deadlines and stuff, and now this judge is rewriting it some more.

At what point does Congress have a say? Or are we just ignoring anything Congress does now?

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Words… just words

cmsinaz on January 15, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Everyone wants to be a legislator. Except the people in Congress. It is baffling.

besser tot als rot on January 15, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Did the judge consult an astrologer before making his ruling?

Socratease on January 15, 2014 at 3:28 PM

So what’s left of the actual law, versus the Court and the President’s rewriting of it unilaterally? Roberts rewrote the entire basis of the law, Obama’s rewritten all the deadlines and stuff, and now this judge is rewriting it some more.

At what point does Congress have a say? Or are we just ignoring anything Congress does now?

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Obama has a pen and a phone. That’s all you need to know.

Ward Cleaver on January 15, 2014 at 3:31 PM

The first step in statutory interpretation is not, vice Judge Friedman, gleaning Congress’s intent or examining the body of the law as a whole and determining its purpose. Rather, the first step is to determine whether the law is ambiguous as written. If it is not, then it must be enforced as written. Only if a law is ambiguous should a judge move on to other forms of statutory interpretation, including the intent of the drafters.

Here, Judge Friedman either completely sidestepped Step 1 or conflated Step 1 with Step 2. That is, he either did not determine whether the statute is ambiguous, or found that it was ambiguous because the clear language did not make sense in light of the rest of the statute. In either case, he made an error. What he should have done was find the statute unambiguous and order that it be enforced as written. And if Congress disagreed with his interpretation, Congress could pass a bill amending the statute retroactively. The fact that Congress is divided and such a bill would never pass is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

This should get reversed on appeal, but likely won’t. It’s too stupid an error for some judge to pounce on.

JoeShmoe99 on January 15, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Slouching Towards Gomorrah Idiocracy

Just write whatever ya want, Congress. Don’t worry if it’s complete or makes sense. Federal judges will clean up the mess for ya.

Marcola on January 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM

By this assinine judge’s logic, the IRS can UNILATERALLY raise taxes in order to pay for the national debt.

This judge needs to be removed from his pathetic political perch as he is nothing but a political hack in a black robe who disgraces his position on a daily basis.

Freddy on January 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I loathe these people. They’re ruining this society.

jawkneemusic on January 15, 2014 at 3:33 PM

So reading comprehension is no longer a requirement to be a federal judge.

rbj on January 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM

By this asinine judge’s logic, the IRS can UNILATERALLY raise taxes in order to pay for the national debt.

This judge needs to be removed from his pathetic political perch as he is nothing but a political hack in a black robe who disgraces his position on a daily basis.

Freddy on January 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Dittoes.

Woe is us.

petefrt on January 15, 2014 at 3:37 PM

What I want is a court case challenging — if all policies have to conform to ACA — why only people who sign up through an exchange, be it Federal or state, can get a subsidy.

bobs1196 on January 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Gee, I always thought that courts wouldn’t look beyond the plain meaning of the unambiguous words of a statute to interpret it unless there was a direct conflict with another provision of the same statute.

I guess I and every appellate court I’ve practiced in for the last 40 years were mistaken about that fundamental point of statutory interpretation.

tkmcp on January 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Penumbras and emanations.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM

What I want is a court case challenging — if all policies have to conform to ACA — why only people who sign up through an exchange, be it Federal or state, can get a subsidy.

There ya go. Good argument to make when this reaches the Supreme Court. Equal Protection and all that.

Socratease on January 15, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Banana republic evidence # 7,853,290.

Ever really stop and wonder just how far we as a Nation have strayed from the Founders’ intent? Shameful!

D-fusit on January 15, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Now we know why Obama said he’s got a telephone.

nobar on January 15, 2014 at 3:41 PM

In a long legal career I’ve read many opinions, but I give Judge Friedman credit for one of the purest expositions of judicial horsesh!t I’ve ever seen.

The principle guide for interpreting the law is the actual language of the law.
But this “judge” apparently doesn’t like what the law says.

This jackass is a poster child for the cause of term limiting federal judicial appointments. These judges ought to have to run for retention every few years so we at least have a chance to throw out the truly incompetent and overtly political tools.

novaculus on January 15, 2014 at 3:47 PM

If it’s a drafting error, it’s up to the drafters to correct it.

Courts can look to legislative intent when it is not possible to glean the meaning from the literal reading of the statute. They do not get to write in what they guess the drafters might have meant to write had the statute been drafted differently.

This judge is re-writing the statute, not interpreting the statute. It is also interesting that, in deciphering legislative intent, he chooses to ignore statements of intent by the legislators who wrote the law.

In this case, the judge in question is deciding a case based on “Presidential Intent” a/k/a Keep ObamaCare Afloat no matter what it takes, rather than legislative intent. I wonder if the judge is aware of which branch of government he occupies.

IndieDogg on January 15, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Another case of Democrats saying “It doesn’t matter what the law SAYS, it’s what WE SAY it is!”

GarandFan on January 15, 2014 at 3:56 PM

The larger point here, though, I think, is that federal judges will be reluctant to nuke America’s new insurance regime based on what’s arguably a drafting error. To have a district court tell millions of people that they’re SOL when it comes to Uncle Sam keeping his promise to help them pay for their expensive new insurance, you need evidence of congressional intent that’s overwhelming, no matter what the text of the statute itself says. At least, if you’re in front of a Democratic appointee you do.

Well, Democrats aren’t known for caring about minor details like what a law actually says. Much easier to let a judge decide what a law really means after the fact. Often a couple hundred years after the law was passed.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2014 at 3:57 PM

I loathe these people. They’re ruining this society.

jawkneemusic on January 15, 2014 at 3:33 PM

I think we passed ruining a long time ago.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM

“But since they can’t force states to do the federal government’s bidding…”

You haven’t heard…?

… Obowma has a pen!

Seven Percent Solution on January 15, 2014 at 4:00 PM

You have to pass it – and get it before a federal judge – before you find out what’s in it!

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Chameleon law: It becomes what ever it needs to protect itself.

If they need to follow the letter of the law, then they will.

IF they need to ignore the letter of the law, they’ll do that as well.

For Leftists, the end justifies the means. Always

WisRich on January 15, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Tar, feathers and a rail for the Judge.

Mason on January 15, 2014 at 4:08 PM

“All people are equal, but some are more equal” — Leftists

This item will end up in the SC, more than the Sisters and Lobby Hobby cases.

Schadenfreude on January 15, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Penumbras and emanations.

Fenris on January 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Or as I tend to phrase it:

Hack judges like Blackmun, smirking Benedict Roberts and now hack Paul Friedman…

…..emanating from their penumbras.

viking01 on January 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM

This is the last, best chance O-Care opponents have of firing a magic bullet at the law to bring down the whole scheme.

And posters here have been telling you this would be shot down for quite awhile now.

But by all means, let’s do have the GOP continually placing all of the eggs in various baskets, even though we see Obama & Co. continually coming by and crushing those baskets, one after another.

The current basket, actually, is how wonderfully horrible all of this pending Obamacare implementation is going to be, just in time for the election, and how wonderfully the GOP will perform in November as a result.

You know – despite the fact that Obama & Co. have demonstrated they will ignore, waive, subsidize, and otherwise do any and every damn thing they want, legal or not, in order to make sure that doesn’t happen. Anyone thing they won’t simply waive or delay it all for another year? Guarantee everyone’s coverage/premiums to the insurance companies until December or later, to make sure no one gets dinged in the checkbook before November?

Seriously, use your imaginations – whatever you think is going to happen that will be horrible for Dems before the election, similarly imagine a way, legal or not, that Obama and the Dems could avoid it.

Given their history so far, do you think they’re not going through the same exercise and planning to act on it?

Midas on January 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Would Congress really have passed the Affordable Care Act while leaving millions of consumers in dozens of states without access to subsidies to make their new coverage more affordable?

I don’t know… did the “Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2009″ set up school lunch menus that specifically left kids hungry, and was “altered” (scrapped) because of this?

Why YES… yes it did.

Any other silly questions I can answer in less than 10 seconds?

Oh… he ruled on that based on the assumption the answer would have to be “no”? Hunh. So he’s that stupid. Well that doesn’t bode well for him not being overturned on appeal; or at least castigated/mocked for his clueless faith in the naming of bills.

gekkobear on January 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM

This should be summarily reversed based on the total violations of judicial canon on display. What legal principle did the judge offer for ignoring the plain text?

If he says that by applying the text as written, the feds cannot enroll anyone–so? Why is it suddenly the judiciaries job to save a badly drafted law? Congress can do it.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Would Congress really have passed the Affordable Care Act while leaving millions of consumers in dozens of states without access to subsidies to make their new coverage more affordable?

Apparently, and it’s STILL the case, even WITH this retarded ruling.

Millions of consumers in dozens of states will STILL be without access to subsidies simply because they’re not using either a state or federal exchange.

Midas on January 15, 2014 at 4:23 PM

“Congress did not mean to exclude residents of two-thirds of the states from premium tax credits,”

So what? Congress also didn’t intend for the states to fail to opt-in and not create their own exchanges. A little bit of reasoning goes a long way. Too bad Judge Friedman didn’t use any.

GWB on January 15, 2014 at 4:29 PM

I don’t think many will disagree with you. Maybe another illegal mandate delay will hurt the Democrats. Regardless, I’m not sure if all hope is being placed into this basket, and hope certainly isn’t a strategy. What do you recommend?

blink on January 15, 2014 at 4:19 PM

I recommend that first, everyone get a grip on reality, and assume the operating position that the Dems *will* do any and everything to make sure Obamacare is *not* the devastating albatross in November that the GOP keeps insisting it just simply has to be. They will *not* simply take their comeuppance and let that happen.

That said, the GOP:

– needs to be on the *offensive* – they cannot simply waive the “Obamacare, ha ha ha” flag; they must aggressively and with intent to destroy, take up the battle against the Dems – on jobs, on the economy, on energy. There are more, but stick with the ones people are fretting about the most.

– needs to embrace the tea party and conservatives, for f*cks sake – stop going to war against them, stop doing crap to alienate them – which, by the way, alienates the whole party from it’s core principles (ahem). The GOP didn’t win 2010 – the tea party and conservatives did. GOP want to win huge again? You’ve had one big win in awhile – use the same playbook, idiots.

Midas on January 15, 2014 at 4:30 PM

The GOP problem remains that Weasel Boehner has the bravery and fortitude of “Angel” on The Rockford Files.

viking01 on January 15, 2014 at 4:34 PM

At what point does Congress have a say? Or are we just ignoring anything Congress does now?

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Why not? Congress isn’t doing anything about it. Congress has a say – but they need to stand up and open their mouth to do so. I see ‘em sitting on their haunches, hoping the lion doesn’t eat them next.

GWB on January 15, 2014 at 4:35 PM

From The Updated Lewis Carroll:

“When Congress uses a word,”Judge Friedman said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

CJ on January 15, 2014 at 4:44 PM

If you take all of Section 1312 as literally as Adler takes the part about state exchanges, argues Friedman, the federal exchange wouldn’t be able to enroll anyone since there’s no specific separate definition of what makes someone a “qualified individual” eligible for federal enrollment — and yet, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants dispute that the feds can enroll people.

So? Then shut down healthcare.gov. Since you only need the exchange to get subsidies and since subsidies cannot be had except in a state exchange, what is the purpose of the federal exchange?

Also, “Hey, refs! Since you didn’t call holding against player A, then you can’t call holding against player B.”

Kafir on January 15, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Then we have only one alternative:
Will Obamacare be repealed or won’t it? Will Congress fund it or won’t it? Will the web site be fixed or not? Blah, blah, blah. We the people just need to do what we need to do and Congress be damned. Resist. Refuse. Revolt. EXEMPT OURSELVES! We did not comply with Prohibition and we simply should not comply with Obamacare. For religious reasons. For privacy reasons. For the cause of liberty and freedom and in protest of the idea that the federal government (under one party rule, no less), can force private citizens to purchase anything with our own money. Are we citizens or subjects? Mice or (wo)men? Just say NO to socialism and to the corrupt, unionized, far left IRS: the gestapo of America’s political class. After all, the federal government ignores millions of illegals who are breaking U.S. immigration law every day. Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. All we have to do is just say no to a scheme we all know is un-American and a violation of our most basic founding fundamentals of privacy, self reliance, limited government and individual freedom.
How To Opt Out Of Obamacare. Know your options and become savvy self-pay patients. Join a health care sharing ministry. These are voluntary, charitable membership organizations that agree to share medical bills among the membership. They function similar to insurance, and are probably the best alternative to conventional health insurance. There are four of them, at least that I know of. Three are open only to practicing Christians (Samaritan Ministries, Christian Healthcare Ministries, and Christian Care Ministry) while a fourth, Liberty HealthShare, is open to anyone who agrees with their ethical commitment to religious liberty. They operate entirely outside of Obamacare’s regulations, and typically offer benefits for about half the cost of similar health insurance. Members are also exempt from having to pay the tax for being uninsured. From the article by Sean Parnellhttp://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/opt-obamacare/#.Up9MwGKiM_o.email

devan95 on January 15, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Why did they take it to court, couldn’t somebody have just filled in another blank or have His Majesty say it is so?

Cindy Munford on January 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM

1. Except that it’s not a drafting error. The fact that someone attempts to argue that it’s a drafting error doesn’t make it a drafting error.

2. Drafting errors need to be fixed by legislative processes. If there’s not enough votes to make the fix, then statutes should stand as written.

blink on January 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Congress passes law saying Wednesday is before Monday. Obviously that’s not what they meant since it makes no sense based on thousands of years of calendars, so *schhwep* gone.

Congress passes law saying a Man can marry a Man. Obviously that’s not what they meant since it makes no sense based on thousands of years of marriages, so…oh wait keep that one. \

–Signed LickFreaksOrDie

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM

“When all of humanity uses a word,” libfreeordia/nonpartisan/alchemist/etc. said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

CJ on January 15, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Just to cement the link between this post and the butt-love-pretend-marriages post.

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 5:05 PM

we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it… but hey don’t worry. if we don’t like what’s in it, we can instantly change it in any way we choose!

-pelosi

Sachiko on January 15, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Pelosi was wrong. We didn’t need to read the bill to know what’s in it.

We had to wait for a judge to tell us what’s in it….even if it’s not.

tbrickert on January 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM

People voted for Perot out of anger with Bush the Elder, and Clinton was elected with a plurality. He appointed this judge.

Elections matter. And the way you vote or don’t vote matters, and there is no sense pretending it does not.

People voted third party, stayed home, or “left the top line blank” because Romney was insufficiently conservative, or middle class, or something. And Obama has been appointing judges who will serve up even more unpleasant decisions 20 years from now.

Elections matter.

Adjoran on January 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM

I guess the Chief Justice set the trend for re-writing a poorly written law. We have now gotten to the point where COngress can write a law poorly and, rather than have Congress have to correct their mistakes, our courts will just re-write it, or interpret the way it should have been written to give them the result they want today.

I’m sorry but, once again, we get the government we deserve. Even if they did steal the last election, we’ve let them get away with it. If we don’t make them pay this election, they’ll just keep doing it.

Look at Obama saying he has a pen and he can just sign executive orders. Why wouldn’t he think he can continue to circumvent the constitution, no one stops him. We have a constitution to protect us from people like Obama, yet we don’t have anyone willing to support the constitution.

bflat879 on January 15, 2014 at 5:31 PM

The argument they rely on here is that the federal exchange is a state exchange that just happens to be run by the federal government FOR the state.

Besides being a bit laughable, wouldn’t it be a trampling of states’ rights for the state to refuse to set up an exchange, and the federal government to override the state’s decision and operate a state exchange for them?

How can the federal government be acting as an agent of the state government to do what the state government decided not to do? That makes a mockery of state sovereignty.

I suspect in trying to rescue the subsidies provision for the federal exchange, they have given cause to invalidate the ability of the federal government to operate an exchange in states that refused to do so. If it’s actually a state exchange rather than a federal exchange, then the state rather obviously has the right to shut down its own exchange.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2014 at 5:32 PM

“When all of humanity uses a word,” libfreeordia/nonpartisan/alchemist/etc. said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

CJ on January 15, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Just to cement the link between this post and the butt-love-pretend-marriages post.

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Ah, but now you’re just complaining about the traditional meaning of a word.

/also libfreeordia/nonpartisan/alchemist/etc.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 15, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Do we have idiots as judges? Particularly on the federal circuit? If it’s not in the law, it’s not law. It’s not up to judges to determine what congress wanted.

sadatoni on January 15, 2014 at 5:39 PM

You mean a federal judge would ignore the plain language of a statute in favor of a conclusion that accords with their political bias? Who knew!

As we slide down the slippery slope toward administrative tyranny, a sometimes benign sometimes not, tyranny, opinions like this one or the infamous Roberts decision will be clpelebrated on the fascist left and condemned forever on the side of Constitutional liberty. Friedman is a bad man.

MTF on January 15, 2014 at 5:43 PM

The larger point here, though, I think, is that federal judges will be reluctant to nuke America’s new insurance regime based on what’s arguably a drafting error.

Make that argument in civil court.

“I don’t care that the divorce agreement says you have to pay alimony for the next 250 years instead of 25…….you signed it, now pay it…case dismissed…”

BobMbx on January 15, 2014 at 5:55 PM

When the meaning of the statute is in doubt,

LOL. Plain English is in doubt. We are now reduced to meaningless utterances and semantic-free syntactical scribblings.

“The Rule of Law” … just a bunch of letters signifying nothing.

Shakespeare had our judicial system down cold:

“It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 15, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Judge Paul Friedman’s decision should be overturned on appeal.

The plain meaning rule of statutory construction means you do not add “or the federal government under section 1321.”

Plain English, the phrase is not there.

slp on January 15, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Alternative headline: Obamacare can mean whatever this administration and its sycophants want it to mean.

locomotivebreath1901 on January 15, 2014 at 8:38 PM

A nation of men, not laws.

Thanks Obama, LIVs everywhere, (and Soros!)

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 15, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Good thing the regime will never run out of other people’s money so they can pay for all this insurance, poverty, and global warning stuff.

Kissmygrits on January 16, 2014 at 8:43 AM