When a federal appeals court ruled last month that a seemingly arcane wording flaw in the Affordable Care Act should invalidate a central part of the law, many of those who drafted the statute five years ago reacted with shock and anger.. In 2009, they had spent months piecing together a compromise that sought to create a national system of subsidized insurance — but one run by the states. Now, they fear their work could be undone by what some call a "drafting error" and others portray as a political miscalculation. The judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based their ruling on language saying that subsidies would be offered for health policies bought through an "exchange established by the state." That wording meant only marketplaces established by 14 states, including California, would qualify, the three-judge panel ruled; 5 million people in 36 states where consumers used the federal government's exchange should not get subsidies. (Another federal appeals court panel, in Virginia, took the opposite view in a ruling issued the same day. Until the litigation is over, subsidies are continuing in all states.) The ruling seems likely to propel Obamacare once more before the Supreme Court, where opponents came within a single vote of overturning the law in 2012. That prospect has sparked an intense debate over how the disputed language ended up in the law....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
