Obamacare: what the courts should do

07/27/2014 11:07 AM

07/25/2014 9:18 AM

Re "Judges use any argument they can to gut health care reform" (Viewpoints, July 24): E.J. Dionne Jr. rails against the federal appeals court that ruled correctly that Obamacare only funds subsidies for exchanges run by the states. Another court ruled that the feds could pay subsidies, basically saying that's what the law should have said and the fact that the law didn't say that should not impede its implementation.

Basically saying the courts should rewrite bad laws to make them work. That's not what the courts are for. They are supposed to follow the law and enforce it, not make it. The problem with Obamacare is not the courts, it's the fact that it was written by clueless staff and interns and voted on by politicians like Nancy Pelosi who admittedly had no clue as to what was in it.

Remember "Pass it to see what's in it?" That's one of the dumbest remarks ever made.

-- George Alger, Placerville

Editor's Choice Videos


Join the Discussion

The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service