Plain language of reform law is all the evidence needed
Regarding the article “The flaw in the law: Millions at risk of losing coverage in lawsuit challenging subsidies” (Modern Healthcare, June 16, p. 24), with all due respect, this is what happens when shoddy legislation is used in a rapid cram-down approach by one political group at the expense of dissenters and quality. As to “there is no evidence in the legislative history that the law’s drafters intended for the subsidies to be available only through state-run exchanges,” there is no evidence aside from the simple language of the law. Clearly the drafters were looking for ways to coerce states to play ball with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Recall that the law also had a provision saying that states that refused to play ball would also have their Medicaid dollars cut. The Supreme Court tossed that out.
Obamacare supporters and apologists see this law as a big positive despite all the warts. As such, threats to the law that are inherent in the legislation—be they the simple language or religious rights—should all be sacrificed at the altar of Obamacare. The Supreme Court (and a simple reading of the law) may indicate otherwise.
Dr. Edward Fotsch Sausalito, Calif.