Let us consider what Obamacare really is from the perspective of whether its authors were competent.
We can begin with the opposite point of view: if the authors of Obamacare were incompetent, then the legislation should be scrapped and re-done by competent people. This is not as crazy as it sounds: given the original bill was a goofy pastiche of ideas slapped and pasted together by various (sometimes competing) groups, and the final draft raced through without people getting a chance to read it (right, Nancy?), there is a good chance that the entire legislation is a stupid mess that needs to be removed and reconsidered.
Or we can consider that the authors knew exactly what they were doing. If so, some questions.
Does Obamacare lower the costs of health insurance for all Americans? We know the answer is no, and this comes from the CBO. We also know that insurance costs have jumped up since passage. Strike this one.
Does Obamacare provide increased access to healthcare? No.
Does Obamacare provide insurance coverage to more Americans? Again, no: the number of options actually dwindles under Obamacare, and buy-in costs are much higher than if free markets were allowed to pursue competitive options.
Does Obamacare reform Medicaid? No, it makes Medicaid worse by dumping millions of previously disallowed participants, while also pulling a half-billion dollars out of it.
Does Obamacare provide better healthcare to participants? No, again. In fact, evidence of rationing and regulated control of treathments ensures that participants will have fewer health options.
So what does Obamacare achieve? As Senator John Cornyn accurately sums up:
The federal government has come up with its own (ever-evolving) definition of “health insurance,” which now includes free access to sterilization, contraception, and certain abortifacients such as the morning-after pill. It is demanding that employers provide this Washington-approved insurance or else face a penalty. It is also demanding that young and/or healthy Americans pay for benefits that they don’t want and don’t need (and potentially cannot afford). In other words, it has decided that the purchase of an expensive, government-approved product is now a condition of U.S. citizenship.
So the only logical extension of the question “what did its authors intend” is that Obamacare is nothing less than a massive liberal/leftist attempt to give out free stuff that their special interests want.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is charged only with interpreting the constitutionality of the law, not its effectiveness. Fortunately, that’s your job. It comes down to this: from everything we have seen or documented, Obamacare provides nothing that the majority of Americans want; it provides—at great cost—a handful of dark and unpleasant items that fewer than 18% of Americans desire.