Readers React: Judicial nitpicking on Obamacare subsidies

To the editor: The issue of the meaning of “state” exchanges under Obamacare vexes a reader. (“Administration can’t afford to lose on Obamacare subsidies,” Editorial, July 22)

It would seem clear to me, if not to some courts, that Congress’ intent reflects the common use of the word “state.” It means “government,” at least in most versions of English.

We talk about the separation of church and state; it does not mean church and Arizona or Maryland, but church and government. It can, on occasion, refer to one particular U.S. state, but that’s not proper in larger judicial considerations of this magnitude.

I think Congress, when drafting the Affordable Care Act, intended “state” to mean “government.” It should have been more careful, but the original intent is obvious.

We need to move along, because Obamacare is actually working well, without nitpicking one single ambiguous word at the expense of millions of people in dire need of insurance. The idea that many may well die over a simple challenge to a common usage is more than a little obscene.

Buddy Roberts, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: What Congress did in drafting the healthcare law was make an erroneous assumption: that the states would all follow its lead.

The U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals is correct. When judges begin straying from the plain meaning of words, the public begins to suspect an agenda, and judges with agendas are always suspect.

Congress may have intended what The Times says, but Congress also knows very well that the states are sovereign entities that exist alongside the federal government, not under it. Writing “established by the state” into the law was a way for Congress to acknowledge state sovereignty.

Most of the states, exercising their sovereignty, have said “no” to Obamacare. The court was right to respect those states.

Jeanne Mount, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: The federal judges in two circuits that issued rulings on Obamacare Tuesday said they didn’t want to rule on “purely ideological” claims, so they needed at least one real plaintiff.

For the D.C. Circuit, up popped David Klemencic, who preferred to sue rather than spend $21 a year for health insurance. If this “gotcha” decision withstands the appeals process, Klemencic will be the new poster boy for shameless GOP politics in 2016.

Alan Segal, San Diego