As a social moderate, I am torn. Whom do I believe? Charles Krauthammer, who cites evidence from the primary author of the ACA, Jonathan Gruber, which documents he knew exactly how the law was written as it pertains to citizens now at risk of losing federal subsidies in states that don’t set up an exchange (“ The confession about ACA deception,” Nov. 14 column)? Or The N&O, which recites Democratic cue cards that position this important nuance as a legislative typo (“ Gutting the ACA,” Nov. 14 editorial)?
In the country that I still believe in, our Supreme Court does not waste time on “dubious” or “silly” cases, words used by The N&O to divert attention from the real story: Did our leaders purposefully write “regrettably ambiguous” legislation so as to confuse? Of course, this topic was not talked about during the legislative debate. One side wanted to avoid it for risk of being exposed, while the other side accepted the law was written as the sponsor intended.
The topic surfaced as significant only when the implications of the law became clear, or exposed, depending on our point of view. Worse is the implication that we might have been misled intentionally by our leaders. Who then better than our Supreme Court to decide?