Supreme Court upholds Obamacare Subsidies
 

Discuss.

You made a typo on your title:

Supreme Court interprets context and ignores words/meanings to judge legality

The Supreme Court Did A Weird Thing And You'll Never Believe What They Said On The Internet Next!

It took you 1:24 to respond in a politics thread about Obama?

I'm stunned

I was already here posting about police shooting dogs, so might as well...

this thread had nothing to do with Obama.

OK...

FWIW, I think the SC essentially said 'you, Congress passed a law that now after a couple elections have decided you don't like but can't through the legislative process do anything about. The law is the law and just because some flunky wrote a sentence that seems like it's in opposition it isn't. So, it is the law and don't keep coming to the SC trying to get us to overturn the law you passed.'

Sorry for all the obvious grammatical errors...

Now, having said that, because of a personal health issue I would be unable to acquire health insurance as a new enrollee without the ACA but because of a grandfathering clause with BCBS I was able to purchase it for $20K/year. That's along with a $5K deductible each for my wife and I ($10K/yr).

With the ACA my cost went down to $14K/yr with a total $7.5K deductible.

So, even with it's flaws I'm in favor of it.

the SC's job is not the determine the merits or not.

anytime a law says "the state" this can now possibly be interpreted to mean: the state and fed.

example:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States and Fed, are reserved to the States and Fed respectively, or to the people.