Reportedly a Federal Judge in Washington, D.C. has allowed another bite at the Affordable Care Act by a plaintiff who already sued on a claim that the ACA is unconstitutional.
This time the same plaintiff is alleging that it is unconstitutional for Congress to provide "tax credits to help defray the cost of health insurance" in State-run Health Insurance Exchanges but not to use the same words about every exchange.
The plaintiff's unconstitutional claim is that the absence of these words violates equal protection as a result, because the ACA (allegedly) does not provide tax credits to all other Health Insurance Exchanges -- even though the plaintiff in question does not want to purchase health insurance on an exchange at all and even though the Internal Revenue Service has issued a rule "that tax credits are available to low- and middle-income people in every state, regardless of who operates the exchange." Robert Pear, "In Practice / Tracking the Affordable Care Act / Judge Allows Challenge of Law to Continue" p. A20, col. 5 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Wednesday, October 23, 2013).
So, the end result if the plaintiff wins would be that no-one would get any tax credits anywhere, especially poor people everywhere.
OMG. Words fail.
Please Read The Disclaimer.