First Published Jul 25 2014 05:30 pm • Last Updated Jul 25 2014 05:30 pm
I am not all surprised that the Washington Post published an editorial criticizing the Circuit Court judges’ decision that the Affordable Care Act does not permit subsidization of insurance in states that do not have state exchanges.
The editorial mind-set seems to be that a law may be interpreted in a way that is exactly opposite to the meaning of the wording of the law. Of what use is any law if such interpretation is allowed?
Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account. See more about comments here.