If I have a high deductible plan as a consumer, I should literally be able to know what I expect to pay for. Of course, the average consumer does not concern themselves with the intricacies of medical coding, but SOMEONE, ANYONE should be able to answer this question. If not, then the fucking bill needs to be clarified.

“The law is too divisive and was passed in a divisive manner. ”

Indeed it is and was. And it should be debated, reformed, etc.

But that does not make a technical challenge grounded in obsessive textualism and suprious intent bordering on conspiracy theory truthism any less absurd.

I doubt your highly erudite founding fathers would be terribly impressed with the today’s pettifogs who affect the protection of the constitution every nanosecond.

“I highly doubt your founding fathers would consider…”

The lawsuit is not grounded in pettiness. The law is too divisive and was passed in a divisive manner. That is what has created the problems exhibited today. Your manners are divisive so I doubt very much you understand the intent of our founders that emphasized representative democracy and never perceived of politics as a profession.

The ACA does define preventive benefits and services, though does not define screening periods (some of the “A” and “B” recommended preventive services do not have a defined screening period, eg. alcohol and obesity to mention two obvious examples). So, if I screen and counsel my patients on obesity once a year, as allowed by the ACA as a covered preventive benefit, it could be construed by the general public as “an annual examination” covered by the ACA.

As Mr. Glason highlighted in a response to my earlier post, the choice of words matters. I would also suggest that their definitions matter, especially when there is difference of understanding between medical professionals and the general public. This difference is turbo-charged when some folks can get it “free” and others have to pay for it.

As to the Supreme Court, that’s for another blog and another day.

I highly doubt your founding fathers would consider state vs. federal exchange qualification for subsidy an affront on the constitution.

I’ve read stuff written by your founding fathers. They had a penchant for common sense and seemed to have a highly tuned BS radar.

I suspect they might have found this line “You might prefer coercion and violence” an utterance from a muppet.

The pettiness in this lawsuit, that you appear to endorse, belittles their wisdom.

“Nearly half your country thinks the other half are balmy…”

Your hysteria is not necessary. Take a Valium.

The Supreme Court will peacefully decide and then Congress and the Presidency will pass more laws because this law was not a compromise that suited the majority of Americans. Eventually most of the public will settle into whatever law exists at the time whether satisfied or not. Some, however, will not act peacefully and will act violently. The Tea Party didn’t act violently, but OWS and similar groups do, and have done so repetitively.

You have your own method of confrontation. While not physically violent you assault those you don’t agree with by demeaning them opening the doors for violence.

“One absurdity is lawsuit.”

When you find that you have a contract dispute with your boss, go ahead demean him/her, use violence or whatever other way you have to deal with these things. I prefer the use of the judicial system. You might prefer coercion and violence. That is your choice.

Why doesn’t Bobby’s blog seem like the right place for it?

“Does this seem like the right place to have this discussion?”

It is actually strangely relevant.

To what extent are you going to take the ACA at its absolute literal level with no scope for uncertainty?

Should the ACA be subjected to a grammar test to make sure the prepositions and conjunctions make sense?