When the latest post from Michael Cannon–he who seeks to sink the subsidies attached to the Federal exchange–hit my inbox, I wondered, “Why don’t his opponents stop arguing the specifics, and instead explain what the Supreme Court ought to do. I also don’t see why Mark Andreeseen (@pmarca) should have all the fun with long Twitter essays. So in only 5 tweets complete with misspellings and other contortions to get my thoughts into 140 characters, this is what I sent back
1/ I might be prepared to concede that @mfcannon is right on the facts of what the wording of the law says (King vs Burwell)
— Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) March 2, 2015
2/ might also concede that @mfcannon is right that the real @JonathanGruber & Senate HELP staffers meant to punish non-excange states
— Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) March 2, 2015
3/ But that doesn't mean that the language would have survived in committee. More likely we'd have House version = one national exchange
— Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) March 2, 2015
4/ And, sorry @mfcannon, the job of SCOTUS is to fix bad laws NOT perpatuate them (Brown vs Bd eductaion. Lawrence vs texas)
— Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) March 2, 2015
5/ Removing the subsidies in King vs Burwell would simply be punishing low inc. people on basis of geography. Is that what @mfcannon wants?
— Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) March 2, 2015
