Currently vacationing on the coast of SC, but thinking about the decision just passed down by three judges on the DC Court of Appeals in this case.

Brief background:
  1. The intention of the ACA was to spread healthcare coverage
  2. The intended mechanism of this was to be state-based insurance exchanges
  3. The federal government got a rude surprise when many states refused to set up their exchanges, instead choosing to rely on a federal system.
  4. This case alleges that because the law's text says subsidies are only for exchanges "established by the State," all of the states on the federal system shouldn't get subsidies, and will see healthcare prices spike.
Proponents of the law are saying the difference is a "typo," which is a strong political message but doesn't quite represent the intention of the gov't to give sweeteners for the states to set up their own exchanges. However, the Obama administratoin most certainly did not intend to remove subsidies via a bait-and-switch, which is how people will feel when this challenge goes through.

So here's the predicament: the law as it stands might be broken. To fix it would require congressional action, but the GOP House is in no mood to help fix this part of the law, since they are so against the entire thing. As a result, the nation could be stuck under a broken law not reflecting the intentions of the drafters.

But what's the alternative, besides drafting well in the first place? If our government can't continue policies faithful to the original intent of laws, the shouldn't be a way to do an end run around it. Laws need to say the right thing.

I don't have an answer, but it is a little scary.