I will respect the ruling of the Supreme Court in upholding the subsidies under Obamacare, but the decision was wrong.
Those who drafted, supported, and voted for Obama care clearly intended to withhold money from those states that did not set up their own state health insurance exchange – just like many other laws that require states to meet certain requirements in order to get federal money. In this case, they intentionally wrote the law to provide subsidies only to people in states who purchased their health insurance through an “exchange established by the state.” It was intended as a carrot or a stick to get the states to comply. Many did not comply, so the strategy backfired.
The job of the Supreme Court is to resolve disputes based on the law, the facts, and the Constitution. It is not the job of the Court to fix mistakes in political strategy. That is what they did, and it was wrong.
Libertarian Perspectives 
LikeLike
That’s actually an excellent point, and I’m one who supports the decision!
I think the ruling had a pragmatic dimension. I mean, who’s going to rob millions of their insurance, and then walk out on the street having put their own lives at risk? Most of those affected would have been in those gun-loving red states. So, most of the justices ruled in favor of the status quo.
LikeLike