Obamacare's Next Legal Challenge

[The Rabbi]

There are actually two. The first involves Hobby Lobby and its objection to ACA on relgious grounds. That will be a small but significant victory.
The second involves the states suing because the ACA says explicitly that the only subsidies will come through state websites. And states that have no websites should be exempt but are not.
Here is the AG of OK making his case. And a very strong one. Yes, language matters. Yes, words matter.
Scott Pruitt: ObamaCare's Next Legal Challenge - WSJ.com

As millions of Americans see their health-insurance premiums increase, have their coverage dropped as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and are unable to use the federal exchange, Oklahoma has sued the Obama administration. The Sooner State and several others are trying to stop the government from imposing tax penalties on certain states, businesses and individuals in defiance of the law. If these legal challenges are successful, the deficit spending associated with the new health-care law could be reduced by approximately $700 billion over the next decade.

While the president's health law is vast and extraordinarily complex, it is in one respect very simple. Subsidies are only to be made available, and tax penalties for not signing up for health insurance are only to be assessed, in states that create their own health-care exchange. The IRS, however, is attempting to enforce tax penalties in all states—including Oklahoma and the majority of the other states that have declined to create their own exchanges. Citizens and businesses in these states must use the federal exchange instead.

The distinction is critical, because under the terms of the law it is the availability of government insurance-premium subsidies that triggers the penalties against businesses if they fail to provide their employees with health insurance that the administration deems acceptable. This is a huge problem for the administration, which desperately needs to hand out tax credits and subsidies to the citizenry to quash the swelling backlash against the law.

When Oklahoma first raised this challenge in 2012, many experts predicted that the Sooner State would "go it alone" in pursuing this legal strategy. Not so. In Indiana, the state and 15 school districts have filed a lawsuit against the IRS, the agency that collects the penalties. Business owners (who, like the state of Oklahoma, would be subject to penalties as employers) and individuals in Virginia and the District of Columbia have done the same. In the D.C. lawsuit, the presiding judge recently rejected the Obama administration's attempt to have the case dismissed, as the judge in the Oklahoma case did in August.

Motions for summary judgment will soon be filed in federal district courts, and our court system will determine whether what the administration has called its "improvements" to the ACA—essentially by ignoring some of its provisions—are lawful.

They are not. Congress was exceedingly clear that tax credits and subsidies are available to people whose plans "were enrolled in through an exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Even so, the administration argues that Congress intended for all Americans to receive subsidies regardless of whether they enrolled in health-care coverage through a state exchange or a federal exchange. But to arrive at that conclusion you have to ignore the plain language of the law. And nowhere in the law did Congress authorize the IRS to provide the credits or subsidies to those other than citizens who buy their insurance through an exchange established under section 1311 of the ACA—i.e., a state exchange.

more at the source.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I keep hearing about these cases that could possibly stop obamacare. Thing is none of them have thus far. SCOTUS already gave this shit law their seal of approval so to expect otherwise seems wishfully stupid at best.

We need congress to turn back this law not the courts. The courts have already proven to be corrupt so lets not put any unnecessary power in their hands.

 

[Old Rocks]

And 40 years from now the GOP will be talking about repealing the ACA and what comes after it, just as they still yap about ending Social Security and MediCare. Not going to happen.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And 40 years from now the GOP will be talking about repealing the ACA and what comes after it, just as they still yap about ending Social Security and MediCare. Not going to happen.

If the GOP ever gets a majority and the Whitehouse it WILL happen. Or a simple 2/3rds majority will suffice.

 

[g5000]

There are actually two. The first involves Hobby Lobby and its objection to ACA on relgious grounds. That will be a small but significant victory.

When will you learn not to count your chickens before they hatch?

Two precedents you may want to review:

Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v Serio

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law provided for remedies.

Neither case is significant at all to the longevity of ACA.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are actually two. The first involves Hobby Lobby and its objection to ACA on relgious grounds. That will be a small but significant victory.

When will you learn not to count your chickens before they hatch?

Two precedents you may want to review:

Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v Serio

If the precedents were definitive the case would not be before the Supreme Court.
I think Hobby Lobby is on pretty good grounds. I suspect they will win as the Court sends a message to the administration to throttle back their war on religion and the 1A.

 

[Sallow]

This is a back door attempt to create a theocracy and an overt attempt to roll back civil rights.

 

[Sallow]

The law provided for remedies.

Neither case is significant at all to the longevity of ACA.

I think you are right.

However the aim is probably much more insidious.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a back door attempt to create a theocracy and an overt attempt to roll back civil rights.

Yeah, sure it is.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The mandate will eventually be stripped out.

 

[martybegan]

This is a back door attempt to create a theocracy and an overt attempt to roll back civil rights.

Dumbest post of the week.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The mandate will eventually be stripped out.

Interesting. We could end up with a two-tier system like Australia.

 

[Sallow]

This is a back door attempt to create a theocracy and an overt attempt to roll back civil rights.

Yeah, sure it is.

Yeah..it absolutely is.

Same way "Citizen's United" was meant to roll back a century's worth of regulations regarding money and politics.

You folks who are so against "legislating from the bench" all of a sudden love it when it's something you like.

This isn't even a "slippery slope", this is a precipice.

 

[Sallow]

The mandate will eventually be stripped out.

No it won't.

 

[g5000]

There are actually two. The first involves Hobby Lobby and its objection to ACA on relgious grounds. That will be a small but significant victory.

When will you learn not to count your chickens before they hatch?

Two precedents you may want to review:

Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v Serio

If the precedents were definitive the case would not be before the Supreme Court.
I think Hobby Lobby is on pretty good grounds. I suspect they will win as the Court sends a message to the administration to throttle back their war on religion and the 1A.

The two cases were in two different circuit court of appeals jurisdictions, and yet both reached the same decision. And the issue was identical to that of Hobby Lobby's. And these were much more obvious religious employers than Hobby Lobby.

Thus it is foolish to assume the Hobby Lobby case will come down in Hobby Lobby's favor.

 

[The Rabbi]

When will you learn not to count your chickens before they hatch?

Two precedents you may want to review:

Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v Serio

If the precedents were definitive the case would not be before the Supreme Court.
I think Hobby Lobby is on pretty good grounds. I suspect they will win as the Court sends a message to the administration to throttle back their war on religion and the 1A.

The two cases were in two different circuit court of appeals jurisdictions, and yet both reached the same decision. And the issue was identical to that of Hobby Lobby's. And these were much more obvious religious employers than Hobby Lobby.

Thus it is foolish to assume the Hobby Lobby case will come down in Hobby Lobby's favor.

If they reached the same decision they wouldn't be at the Supreme Court level.
Supreme Court to Review Health Law's Contraception Mandate - WSJ.com