Dear SCOTUS: Health reforms intended for all under constitution

[TheNutcracker]

LTE in today's Tampa Bay Times.....

I was astounded when reading this editorial on the issue of King vs. Burwell. The sentence quoted by the Times to be the basis for the suit indicated that federal subsidies are provided to low-income people who buy private insurance on an exchange "established by the state".

The dictionary gives the first political definition of "state" as "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation." It is further defined as the "body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church)." Additionally, the definition includes "the operations or activities of a central civil government."

The document in question was written as a federal law. It is not a law passed by one or more individual states. The United States is a constitutional union of states, not a loose confederacy. A law of the national government is a law in all the states. The state referenced in the law is the state in the national sense of the word. This difference was thoroughly and thoughtfully worked out by the Founding Fathers. Any decision to the contrary could destroy the very basis of our CONSTITUTION.

Mxxx Axx Hxxxxx
Dunnellon, FL

****************************************

After reading this, they should not have agreed to take the case, and why would it take until June?

[TheNutcracker]

1. Kick to MSM....we need a real discussion...

[BlueCaliDem]

2. This "State" business made me scratch my head as well when I read those six words.

Since ObamaCare is a FEDERAL law, wouldn't the word "State" pertain to the Federal Government, not individual States? If the former is true, then what's the brouhaha all about? SCOTUS should have never taken on this frivolous suit. Yet another reason to elect another Democrat in the White House and to win back the Senate.

We need to keep doing so until Scalia and Kennedy either keel over in their seats a la Rehnquist or decide to finally retire. We need to neuter the Republican influence on our highest court - and we need to do so within the next decade before we lose everything that helps the average American.

[former9thward]

3. No place in the Constitution is word "state"

used as you are defining it. It is not there. The Constitution uses the word state to mean the individual states, 13 at the time.

[TheNutcracker]

6. We don't have MEDICARE in certain states as a fed law that states don't like.

By what you say, count on states to begin dismantling it.

I disagree with you.

And as Kagen said, we don't decide cases based on FOUR words out of context. That makes any words meaningless.

[former9thward]

8. Don't understand your comment about Medicare.

Medicare is in all 50 states. It is paid for by the federal government. The states have nothing to do with it. The ACA, everyone agrees, had a role for states to play if they wanted. The legal question is whether the federal government could set up exchanges where the state elected not to.

[Takket]

4. .

i looked up the actual text of the low and it says:

(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B

The first use of State in that paragraph clearly refers to one of the 50 states, not the government in general. While I have often heard of "the State" being used to describe the government in general, I think its a reach at best here because of that FIRST use of the word State in that paragraph. That being said, common sense when you look at the law as a whole and how exchanges are created make it pretty clear what the intent was. It is absurd to believe the law was meant to say "State" when the use of that word makes no sense with how the rest of the law is worded.

[WDIM]

5. Federal law is supreme but limited to the powers in the Constitution.

The Constitution gives each branch of gov its powers and what they are allowed to do.

Just because the Federal Government passes a law it does not make it a supreme law. Lets say the federal gov passed a law saying all red head people should be locked up. That is beyond the powers expressed in the constitution the states could sue as the law is unconstitutional and the supreme court can strike it down.

Supremacy clause is meant that if the fed has one law and the state has a conflicting law the fed law overrides the state law. But that is only if the fed law is constitutional.

Edit. I wanted to add i do think the aca is constitutional and the power comes from commerce clause health insurance is commerce among the several states.

[TheNutcracker]

7. Again, based on your assumption say goodbye to Medicare!