Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
QWB and EC can say whatever they want, but they don't have the facts.
Until they do, all that needs to be done is point that fact out. No requirement to rebut information.
You want facts? How about the fact that the clearly stated legislative intent of the law was to force states to set up exchanges or watch the people in their state not get all those shiny subsidies?
The far right wacadoodles are pinning their hopes on the definition of what "State" means in the legislation.
The full court in Washington will overturn the tper decision, and SCOTUS will once again preserve legislative intent.
QWB and EC can say whatever they want, but they don't have the facts.
Until they do, all that needs to be done is point that fact out. No requirement to rebut information.
You want facts? How about the fact that the clearly stated legislative intent of the law was to force states to set up exchanges or watch the people in their state not get all those shiny subsidies?
He's referring to the slowness of getting the federal exchange set up.
If the law did not intend the subsidies to be available on the federal exchange, why was the federal exchange set up with every indication included saying just the opposite?
What part of "State" and what it means do you not get, guys?
Show where the law says they are not....If the law did not intend the subsidies to be available on the federal exchange, why was the federal exchange set up with every indication included saying just the opposite?
Show where the law says subsidies are available for the federal exchange.
QWB, thanks for showing your ignorance.
I can wait for you to catch up.
Show where the law says they are not....If the law did not intend the subsidies to be available on the federal exchange, why was the federal exchange set up with every indication included saying just the opposite?
Show where the law says subsidies are available for the federal exchange.
No where in the Law does it state that subsidies SHALL NOT be paid, if insurance is purchase on the Federal exchanges set up.
It doesn't say that.... if it did say that, then this would be a slam dunk win for those against Obamacare... but no where does it state that subsidies are not available on the Federal Exchanges that were to be set up for the States without an exchange of their own, and it is implied in many many ways, that subsidies would be covered on the Federal Exchanges for those who do qualify.
We have finally reached the final defense line of the extreme right: "I don't have to believe the language."
That is an admission they understand the end game is afoot and that they lost.
I am grateful to most of you reactionaries for conducting yourself in a respectful manner.
Unsubscribe.
The fact is that the wukfits of the far right are misdefining the legislative intent of "State".
We all know what it means, and SCOTUS will again slap the far right down.
