Trials And Tribulation Of SLOP Legislation -(Obamacare)

Google -search

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-six-words-might-hold-the-fate-of-obamacare-before-the-supreme-court/2015/03/01/437c2836-bd39-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html


Excerpt from Washington Post- Lisa Rein reported- Alice Crites contributed.

{The law, adopted in 2010, says the federal government can pay subsidies to help people afford insurance bought through “an Exchange established by the state.” (These are the six words.)

But two-thirds of the states have opted against setting up their own exchanges, and as a result, more Americans have been buying insurance through the federal insurance marketplace. Now, opponents of the law will make their case to the high court that Americans who are not using the state exchanges are ineligible for subsidies. }

The procedures of care, internally, in the hospital that you receive at the hospital when you are a patient, are regulated by the rules of the federal government under exchange guidelines and mandates. When there is no exchanges, who sets the CRITERIA of care that you receive under your policy? Answer: NOBODY.

The law becomes a cousin of the writing contained within the wording in the very policy that you carry. In other words there is no more standard of quality care for all. There is only a basic misunderstood guideline of a supposed law. That no one understands including, apparently the Supreme Court. They are to make a decision on the EXCHANGES and what that means with respect to subsidies; soon.

They have go back and rewrite the law. If they don't the subsidies will not be paid. So....
Right now the Supreme Court is deciding if the law can be interpreted to mean that the subsidies will be paid to anybody in any exchange. For whatever guideline reason there is.

The law has to back up whatever the Government dictates to States or individuals, usually -supposedly- according to the Constitution.

I think the determination of whether or not the law is Constitutional should be made before the laws are voted on in the Congress. Not afterwards by argument or by Supreme Court ruling.
In the past there was a system to at least review legislation before it was taken into consideration for vote. I think that is the best policy instead of giving the majority in the Houses the right to slop legislation down and vote on it without it being Constitutional. This slop legislation seems to be the definition of Obamacare.