A federal District Court ruling today ignored the plain language of ObamaCare and claimed people in states who opted out of setting up their own exchanges face tax penalties under the law, even though the “Affordable Care Act” statute specifically excludes them.
United States District Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that the phrase “established by the State” means “established by the federal government, too” in this case because construction of the statute is sloppy in other places. I’m not kidding:
“Looking only at the language of 26 U.S.C. § 36B(b)-(c), isolated from the cross-referenced text of 42 U.S.C. § 18031, 42 U.S.C. § 18041, and 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(d)(21), the plaintiffs’ argument may seem the more intuitive one. Why would Congress have inserted the phrase “established by the State under [42 U.S.C. § 18031]” if it intended to refer to Exchanges created by a state or by HHS? But defendants provide a plausible and persuasive answer: Because the ACA takes a state-established Exchange as a given and directs the Secretary of HHS to establish such Exchange and bring it into operation if the state does not do so. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 18031(b)-(d), 18041(c). In other words, even where a state does not actually establish an Exchange, the federal government can create “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U.S.C. § 18031]” on behalf of that state.”
So this judge wants to appoint the Secretary of HHS as Governor and legislature of each of the states? That’s interesting.
But the best part came later:
“If construed literally, these provisions would be nullified when applied to states without state-run Exchanges, leading to strange or absurd results.”
I remain perplexed by those nominal Republicans who seem so eager to give up this fight. When the other side is melting down, continue to apply heat.
You can read the ruling for yourself here.