I want to kiss the lawyer who defends this case.

Two Courts, Two Strategies: A Guide to the Recent Decisions on the ACA - The Commonwealth Fund.The only reason I am reading the news this weeks is to keep up this blog, and I would like for everyone to know that I am now out of Tums and Pepto.The above article describes the latest legal challenge for the ACA rising through the courts. It is great if you need some neck exercise. SMH SMH SMH SMH SMH. I just learned what that means.Here is the meat of the case:

For the plaintiffs, that strategy (referred to by lawyers as “the theory of the case”) lies squarely in convincing the courts that a handful of words in the tax-code provisions of a 900-page law (in this case “Exchange established by the State under §1311”) means exactly that. If a state does not establish an exchange, there can be no subsidies.

Semantics! At stake for the states that have defaulted to the federal marketplace (instead of facilitating their own) are the federal subsidies offered to make insurance bought on these marketplaces more affordable. Which would be a BIG TIME BUMMER for people making under 400% of the federal poverty level ($95,400 for family of four) in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Va, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.