capricious in a number of respects i'll run through those three points you know whether each of them independently require the validation of the first rule is premised on a counterfactual understanding of the language and i understand those arguments but i'm trying to understand the argument in terms of the statutory provisions that congress actually different and larger for people who are living on the margin five percent increase for expensive product like health insurance makes big difference and so i think there is no question that it will drop to be effective numbers of people out of  think that that is correct it will draw them out because it is cheaper now i think our understanding is that congress wanted that to be a ca believe that all plans in the individual market should have minim people who are asked compliant insurance whether through an exchange or otherwise as opposed to the less generous but less expensive package that comes with the i but don't you also have to focus on right there's another category under the affordable care act which is people who are uninsured and that included everyone who works within the exemptions to the mandate and exemptions to the penalty it now is that th expansion right there a lot of people below the poverty level who have who don't qualify for medicaid who don't qualify for the subsidy if you focus on the line between s t ira and a lot of people who would otherwise just be uninsured why doesn't it look like a pretty good option because you might be drawing some people from the exchanges but you're going to be drawing a lot of people in who would otherwise just on the people who were told one hundred percent of the federal poverty line they're not eligible for medicaid at least in many states they can't possibly afford companion insurance without force people into the option of nothing the question is whether there is reason to believe congress was aware of that interpretation and sure there is reason to believe congress was aware again congress chose to drop the definition of individual op insurance coverage should program that satisfactory to you as an individual and we've had cases where people have been rolled in the national guard when they have health problems on the horizon get their coverage and then when they're not covered they got a short term policy do you see any difference eligible were essentially required to join the a c a or pay a penalty that a short term policy that lasts for three years is inconsistent with that where the government acknowledged that this would draw millions of arguments i just want to be clear that that was not what you were arguing in your briefs and so one comes in another context but let's move on and just deal with the question true ok i'm looking at page thirty all right and i'm looking at what your argument said all right and the point we were addressing earlier is not that millions of people were choir to that coverage that included four million people who we choose to pay the penalty rather is in acquiring comprehensive individual coverage it also included some fourteen of the health system that congress would provide better care i'm just trying to understand that at the time congress act additional set millions of people well income americans with incomes below the poverty line some two million three hundred thousand people who cannot possibly afford insurance i mean if it were market without subsidies and made many cases no coverage options of it in short term typing considerable strength to them but i need to understand that that's all right so you're saying that the two thousand and sixteen rule is entirely consistent and that given that congress preserves all these comprehensive coverage and no coverage at all with the cost causing the greater number of people to have no coverage at all it's an essential point and on and on the economic that i think one that's critical to understand this russell mentioned and the brief notes but for certain for some people who are at the top end of the income range for subsidy eligibility the subsidy itself may not be very high but that does not mean that those people are any more price sensitive than anybody else who's eligible for subsidies to changes in the benchmark premium the way the subsidies formula works and this is in section thirty six dollars the tax code is what is defined the subsidy as  benchmark premium increases by a one hundred dollars that person's subsidy will go to eight hundred and thirteen dollars so critically for anybody who's subsidy eligible which is again eighty seven percent of people who buy insurance on the exchanges people are people to leave the individual markets because they're not subsidy eligible or because the subsidy covers a small amount there's no reason to believe increases in the premiums will cause celebrating migration out of the you want to finish your question and then i'll come back when you go ahead with your and then i'll come back term limited correctly what it did and and those that that serves have reasonable interpreted the congress didn't congress was fully aware force of habit say you know three months or six months it did that and other and at the time of