Do I Have This Straight?

[Cassandro]

The ACA contains provisions which were deliberately inserted to underestimate its cost impact in order to comply with existing law. Now that it has been implemented, its supporters want SCOTUS to ignore those same provisions. Why don't we scrap this need for subterfuge by adopting a parliamentary system of government?

 

[Greenbeard]

The ACA contains provisions which were deliberately inserted to underestimate its cost impact in order to comply with existing law. Now that it has been implemented, its supporters want SCOTUS to ignore those same provisions. Why don't we scrap this need for subterfuge by adopting a parliamentary system of government?

You've got it backwards. If the anti-ACA petitioners' interpretation holds (and residents of most red states aren't eligible to get insurance subsidies), the cost impact of the law was vastly overestimated. It gets a lot cheaper if it just taxes the red states but doesn't have to pay out any benefits to them.

 

[Cassandro]

The ACA contains provisions which were deliberately inserted to underestimate its cost impact in order to comply with existing law. Now that it has been implemented, its supporters want SCOTUS to ignore those same provisions. Why don't we scrap this need for subterfuge by adopting a parliamentary system of government?

You've got it backwards. If the anti-ACA petitioners' interpretation holds (and residents of most red states aren't eligible to get insurance subsidies), the cost impact of the law was vastly overestimated. It gets a lot cheaper if it just taxes the red states but doesn't have to pay out any benefits to them.

So it's cheaper as written?

 

[Greenbeard]

So it's cheaper as written?

I don't buy that it's written to deny people in red states financial assistance. That's certainly not what the CBO assumed in estimating its cost.

But if the SCOTUS does buy that, then yes. It becomes a lot cheaper than advertised.