WASHINGTON – A federal judge Wednesday emphatically rejected a last-ditch challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, ruling that the Affordable Care Act allows low-income Americans to get government subsidies to buy health coverage no matter what state they live in.

Critics of the law argued that the statute, passed by Congress in 2010, limited these subsidies to consumers in states that operate their own insurance marketplaces.

Only 14 states do that; the remaining 36 rely on the federal government to run their marketplaces, or exchanges.

The marketplaces, which opened Oct. 1 for 2014 coverage, are designed to allow Americans who do not get coverage through an employer to shop among plans that must meet new basic standards. Consumers who make less than four times the federal poverty level – or about $94,000 for a family of four – qualify for tax credits to offset the costs of their premiums.

...
In his ruling, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia flatly rejected the plaintiff’s claims. “The plain text of the statute, the statutory structure, and the statutory purpose make clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated exchanges,” he concluded.

Three similar suits are still pending before other judges around the country.

Friedman was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton.

Let's just put it this way, I can barely afford to pay for mine, I got married 9 months sooner than I had planned because of Obama care being the catalyst to my insurance premiums doubling. We could no longer afford to have my 2 boys on my insurance and her son and daughter on her insurance. Combined the 2 policy premiums went from $1000 dollars a month to $2000. This was beyond our budgetary means so we push our wedding up from next spring to last fall.

And of the several hundred small business customers I have they all tell me exactly the same thing.

And trust me we already have the Brady bunch and have NO need for any birth control or prenatal services provided any longer. We are unconstitutionally being forced to buy something against our will.

You are right, the number of people on some sort of assistance in MN is staggering. With all those people on the States welfare programs, it doesn't suprise me at all that there are so many Liberal politicians. People who get "welfare type" benefits from the state will not v**e for anything except a Liberal Democrat or RINO Republican.

I have relatives in MN and they all collect something from the State. Fuel subsidies, state paid fuel efficient heating systems, new insulation for their homes. Not really on welfare or food stamps but State benefits none the less.