title: REPUBLICAN PROPOSES HOUSE BILL TO FORCE Supreme Court Justices And Employees To Join Obamacare
text: Of course, we d be okay with excluding three of the Justices who didn t go along with the rubber stamping of Obama s reckless socialized medicine plan. While we re at it, it s only fair for Barry and his family to be forced to use his signature  Obamacare  insurance plan as well A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law s exchanges. As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,  he said.  That s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,  Babin said.Babin s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges. By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,  he added.His move follows the Supreme Court s ruling Thursday morning that upheld the subsidies under ObamaCare that are provided by the government to offset the cost of buying insurance.The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said consumers purchasing health insurance from the federal exchange in roughly 34 states could continue to do so.The ruling in King v. Burwell has spurred anger on the right, with conservatives questioning the logic of the decision. They deserve an Olympic medal for the legal gymnastics,  Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told The Hill.Roberts argued in his decision that eliminating subsidies would have pulled state healthcare markets into a death spiral. That chain of effects, he added, was not consistent with ObamaCare s intent. The argument that the phrase  established by the State  would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive,  he wrote.Justice Antonin Scalia strongly criticized that interpretation in his dissent. We should start by calling this law SCOTUScare,  he wrote, lambasting Roberts for the ObamaCare decision in 2012 declaring the law s mandate that people buy insurance constitutional.Via: The Hill 