http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/03/1368320/-Red-states-in-King-case-are-lying-to-the-Supreme-nbsp-Court?detail=email
You're being lied to, Chief Justice Roberts.
Brian Beutler has a timely reminder for Supreme Court Justices about to hear arguments in King v. Burwell, the case that could strip federal subsidies for health insurance away from millions of people in the states which did not establish their own exchanges. Several of those states have filed briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs, essentially swearing that they knew all along that if they didn't set up their own exchanges, they would be missing out on significant federal dollars in subsidies coming into their states. The problem for them is, as Beutler writes, that the actual history of their decisions on whether or not to set up exchanges is making liars of them now.
[I]n several instances the claim that states predicated their decisions on the subsidy "incentive" appears to be completely false.
"When the state opted to join the federal exchange, the decision was made based on the understanding that credits would be available," Shayna Varner, a spokeswoman for West Virginia's Democratic governor Earl Ray Tomblin, told the Charleston Gazette last week. "Governor Tomblin was not consulted before the attorney general filed his amicus brief, and the brief does not reflect the state's understanding of the law when the decision to join the federal exchange was initially made."
Tomblin has contemporaneous notes to back him up.
Similar evidence suggests that officials in South Carolina, another signatory to the brief, didn't know about the condition on the subsidies. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent has likewise spoken to officials in Republican-controlled states that didn't join the brief, all of whom attested to the same thing: the subsidies were presumed to be an unconditional feature of the law. After an extensive review Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms concluded that tax credit availability didn’t drive decision-making in any of these states.
"Taking a closer look back at the statements and reports we compiled from the amici states specifically, it is not evident that this line of reasoning played a significant role, if any, in most of their decisions to opt out of operating state-based exchanges."
i agree given these states that denied their population healthcare if there was some misunderstanding it would come from them and their part of the scotus not reading the bill they constantly complain about the 1,000 page plus document and Scalia even said "you really expect us to read this", that should be grounds for impeachment and removal for malfeasance.
