# Okay, fine, what'll happen if the Supreme Court destroys the ACA?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-whatll-happen-if-the-supreme-court-destroys-the-aca/707102>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 13, 2014, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-whatll-happen-if-the-supreme-court-destroys-the-aca/707102 "2014-12-13T09:49:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 37

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-whatll-happen-if-the-supreme-court-destroys-the-aca/707102/37 "2014-12-16T17:27:36Z")

</div>

> [@2ManyTacos](#):
>
> It’s because - straight up - it’s not a valid argument. Full stop.
> 
> If you don’t believe me, go read up on Cannon & Adler - the two guys who concocted this fiasco - and then come back & tell me that their argument is legitimate & made in good faith. It can’t be done.

Their argument is legitimate and made in good faith.

Looks like it can be done.

> [@](#):
>
> The fact that there is a trutherism movement to this nonsense is evidence of its illegitimacy, given that there’s, y’know, not a scintilla of evidence that Congress intended for this to happen. Also, since you’re gung-ho about the law meaning what the law says, [here is the law EXPLICITLY saying that fed exchanges get tax credits.](http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2011/09/11/yes-the-federal-exchange-can-offer-premium-tax-credits/)

There’s more than a scintilla: there are the actual words that Congress passed.

And you’re completely incorrect in your claim that anything in that link “explicitly” says that fed exchanges get tax credits. The link points out that 1321(c) requires federal exchanges report to the IRS and to the taxpayer any information regarding tax credits provided to individuals through the exchange. From this one might _infer_ that Congress intended the federal exchanges to offer subsidies, or one could infer that Congress left that in as a placeholder, intending the report to constitute “zero dollars,” unless Congress acted further to authorize subsidies for federal exchanges, which they never did.

Do you not understand what the word “explicit” means?

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-whatll-happen-if-the-supreme-court-destroys-the-aca/707102)._