Regarding the Nov. 14 editorial “ Gutting the ACA”: Not withstanding the many important benefits and protections provided by the ACA, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear King v. Burwell is appropriate. Laws, like other legal agreements and documents, are carefully written so there is no subsequent misunderstanding of their intent or meaning.
Given the recent revelations of Jonathan Gruber, the principal architect of the ACA, that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage ... that was very, very critical to getting this thing (ACA) passed” and his later admission that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits,” it appears the court’s review is more than justified.
Legal language, like elections, has consequences. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should have taken time to read the law and get the language right before passing it, so that its benefit could be ensured to those in need.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The News & Observer