Lack of bi­par­ti­san­ship at root of is­sues with ACA

Modern Healthcare - - COMMENT -

Re­gard­ing the story “Ok­la­homa judge rules against Oba­macare sub­si­dies” (Mod­ern­Health­care.com, Sept. 30), there is lit­tle ar­gu­ment that Congress passed a bill that specif­i­cally ex­empted a na­tional in­surance ex­change from sub­si­dies, in the thought that it was such a poi­son pill that no state would dare not open their own ex­change (or part­ner with other states to open one). Oops, it didn’t turn out quite how they ex­pected.

I wish the le­gal wran­gling would go away, but I’m not ready to throw out the whole leg­isla­tive process the coun­try has used since its in­cep­tion by al­low­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion to say the equiv­a­lent of “My bad, let’s try this in­stead,” and com­pletely ig­nor­ing the ac­tual law as they im­ple­ment it. When Rom­ney-Care was passed in Mas­sachusetts, it was a true bi­par­ti­san bill, so if the law needed tweaks, it was a rel­a­tively sim­ple mat­ter to ask the Leg­is­la­ture to do it. We are see­ing the fruits of pass­ing a de­cid­edly par­ti­san bill when one party con­trolled both cham­bers of Congress.

Ja­son Smith Den­ver

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.