Suit in Oklahoma could knock out ObamaCare By Dick Morris - 10/08/13 06:31 PM ET Why didn’t anyone else think of it? Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, acting on the research of Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, has brought a new lawsuit, on behalf of the state, against ObamaCare. Unlike the suit brought by 26 state attorneys general, this lawsuit does not make a constitutional objection to the Affordable Care Act. Instead, it uses the language of the law to challenge the elaborate system of subsidies, tax credits and individual or employer mandates and fines the act has spawned. Adler and Cannon studied the actual text of the law — something Congress never did — and found that it explicitly provided a subsidy only to those who receive their insurance through state exchanges. Indeed, the subsidies and tax credits were intended to be the carrot that induced states to set up exchanges rather than force the feds to set up their own. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the language of the statute should be “interpreted” to extend the subsidies to those enrolled in state or federal exchanges, but that’s not what the law says. Section 1401 of the act, according to their article, “authorizes premium-assistance tax credits and makes them available only through state-run Exchanges.” The section says that taxpayers may receive a tax credit only if “the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan ... that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Adler and Cannon argue that “by its express terms, this provision only applies to exchanges ‘established by a state’ and ‘established ... under Section 1311.’ Section 1401 further emphasizes that tax credits are available only through Section 1311 exchanges.” The IRS and defenders of the legislation try to stretch the language to imply a mandate to cover those in federal exchanges. Former IRS Director Douglas Shulman, answering a letter from Republican congressmen about whether the subsidies are limited to state exchanges, wrote: Unfortunately for President Obama, the statute implies no such thing. It is not only silent on any subsidies for federal exchanges, it is clear that the subsidies were intended to encourage states to set up exchanges. The Oklahoma suit has survived a motion to dismiss and its standing to bring the suit has been affirmed by the District Court. Pruitt hopes for a judgment later this year and feels the case might reach the Supreme Court by late next year. Godspeed! Morris, who served as adviser to former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former President Clinton, is the author of 16 books, including his latest, Screwed and Here Come the Black Helicopters. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to dickmorris.com. http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/327337-suit-in-oklahoma-could-knock-out-obamacare http://freebeacon.com/lawsuit-challenging-obamacare-subsidies-moves-forward/?print=1ruling http://www.healthcarelawsuits.org/d....ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789 --------------------- This is an interesting take on this piece of legislation. I look forward to seeing how the next court rules on this.
Chose to read what you want. Why not try reading the actual suit? It has traction and even withstood a motion to dismiss by the Obama administration. Looks like I won Sam.
So how many legal challenges have there been now to the ACA? So far it has withstood all of them. I am guessing this one will end up the same way.
This suit is stupid. Not because it can't be won by the Republicans, but rather because it CAN BE. This suit would not knock out Obamacare, it would simply get rid of the subsidy in all of the non-state run exchange states, which also all happen to be red. This would be a disaster. All of the parts of Obamacare that drive up costs would still be law, but if you are unlucky enough to live under the governorship of men like Perry, you just wouldn't get a subsidy. This would make people hate Republicans. All of the bad parts of the law would hit us in terms of pricing, but no subsidies to follow.
Hahahahah, figures. Obamacare is here, and it's here to stay. Sorry Wall Street, sorry GOP, sorry right wingers, sorry libertarians, but the American people won and you lost. And expect that trend to continue. Forever.
NO NEW TAXES *unless it's brought through our legal, and moral crusade to chip away at all parts of the Obamacare law, because it's called OBAMACARE. http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/ Tax credits to small businesses to buy insurance % in favor Total Dem Ind Rep 88% 96% 87% 83% Wow, I can't even think of a more losing play. Bring attention to subsidies, and tax credits, an IMMENSELY POPULAR part of Obamacare into stark focus, make the red states that decided to vent hot fury, and shoot themselves in the foot look like idiots, and watch Republicans furiously try to attack tax credits, because...??? Godspeed.
Exactly. This is ridiculous and only hurts GOP states in their anti-Obamacare quest. They are just forcing themselves to open exchanges or costing their own citizens money.
Republicans are probably hoping it'll make people hate Obamacare and thus Democrats too. They're not only against Obamacare, they're against Obamacare working. They don't want people to like it so if they can throw a wrench in it, they'll gladly do it. And if the shutdown has shown us anything, it's that Republicans aren't good at predicting who the public will blame when **** happens.
Expect them shortly to be pandering for donations to fund their suit and lobbying related to their suit. Also expect for them to be overly sanguine about their prospects. Who cares if they survived a motion to dismiss other than I guess the federal government who will have to spend additional tax dollars defending the law.
It's really sad to see how badly a handful of people want the Govt to have more control. It would seem that the genuine displeasure of the people toward the actions of our elected officials would actually allow us to bring change to the system. Instead it seems like the people continue to hunker down and accept more and more govt to have control of our country.
How does the gov't have more control with Obamacare? This talking point is so weird. You rail against this control thing - but where is the gov't getting control? More gov't? Obamacare just sets up a market place. Have every seen a marketplace? They have been around for 1000's of years.
So if I don't want to sign up through the marketplace and my current insurance plan isn't allowed under ACA; I either fold and spend more money on insurance or pay the govt a fine. Why can't I just keep the insurance I have now? How are they planning to fund all of the insurance subsidies? They can't even pay their other bills.
How many elections have to pass before you realize this is what people want compared to the alternative? How many times must courts shoot down challenges before you realize ObamaCare isn't go anywhere? The Republicans are running their party into the ground to appease an aging, out of touch minority of the public.
The government dictated the terms of your current insurance too. The only difference is that the terms are different - why are you OK with the old ones but not the new ones?
