Granted, this means next to nothing as far as the courts are concerned, since they are beholden to no one. But it does speak to what Congress should be considering—when all they'd need to do is fix a single sentence to make this particular problem go away.

But that would be too easy, wouldn't it? Why fix something you want to fail? I've long since argued that since this law was passed, it should survive or die on its own, without undue tampering. But we've seen hard evidence that where the law was embraced—and exchanges established and Medicaid expanded—the number of uninsureds has fallen dramatically. Whereas, states that fought PPACA every step of the way, Texas and Florida, to name just two, have experienced very little progress.

So it's a tough—if not downright misleading—argument for critics such as Scott and Perry to point out what a failure PPACA is while doing everything in their power to sabotage it. It would be a lot like me refusing to put oil in my new Jeep, and then blaming Chrysler for making such a crappy product when the engine locks up and I get left on the side of the road.

And keep in mind that despite all this expanded coverage, the affordable part of PPACA remains as large as misnomer as it ever was.

Sure, everyone loves those subsidies—and expanded (and federally funded) Medicaid now—but that bill will come due, for both states and regular taxpayers. And then we'll be left with one hell of a hangover.