| Wolferz |
06-27-15 03:17 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat
(Post 2324282)
the ruling is right in the mainstream of case law. It is standard to look at the context and object of the law when interpreting particular provisions, so nothing unusual there.
In a larger sense, what the Court is once again saying is that this is a political problem and it is up to voters and Congress to fix it, not the Supreme Court.
This is a narrow ruling, since it only applies to the interpretation of that section as written, Congress is, of course, free to amend the law to explicitely provide that no one will get federal subsidies in states that have not set up their own exchanges...if they so wish...:ping:
|
Any senator or congress critter that goes along with that, will be out of a job in short order. Their built in loop hole kind of backfired on them, eh?:hmmm:
I think the IRS has been dragging their heels on the wife's refund until this case was decided.:down:
Compared to what she paid in insurance premiums for the six months prior to her 65th birthday, the subsidy is a joke anyway. |
