Peter Suderman on Why Obamacare Means What Obamacare Says

Is it possible to discern congressional intent by examining what was never said? In the wake of last week's circuit court ruling that, contrary to the Obama administration's current implementation, Obamacare does not allow insurance subsidies in federally run health exchanges, supporters of the law and reporters who covered it have argued as much. No one in Congress ever said that subsidies were limited to state-run exchanges, their argument goes, and the idea was unheard of before critics of the health law decided to challenge the administration in court.
It's true that the legislative history isn't particularly revealing. The issue of whether subsidies would be available in federally established exchanges was rarely if ever brought up prior to the law's passage.
Thankfully, writes Reason Senior Editor Peter Suderman, there's no need to infer from what wasn't said. There is a clear record of congressional intent in the plain text of the legislation that Congress voted into law.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?