Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitts year-old lawsuit to bring down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beginning to receive more attention now that Obamacare has endured the first week of its square-wheeled rollout.
Taking a different approach than that employed by the 28 States that lost a Constitutional argument before the Supreme Court, Oklahoma is arguing that the law stands against itself by following separate tracks for those States which create their own insurance exchanges (and agree to fund the attendant expansion of Medicaid), and those States that have Federally-managed exchanges imposed because they refused to participate in implementing the law (or the Medicaid expansion).
The Act specifies that only low-income residents in States that have agreed to expand Medicaid and institute their own health care exchange programs are eligible to receive the promised insurance premium subsidies. Residents of States that dont participate in Obamacare, by contrast, are not eligible to receive those subsidies even if they buy Obamacare insurance plans through the Federal exchange program.
Merrill Matthews at Forbes explained back in July how Oklahoma is arguing that dichotomy knocks part of the Obamacare law out of step with its own requirements:
The liberals writing the law assumed the vast majority of states would create their own exchange. But just to make sure, they included a carrot that clearly says that the federal subsidies are available ONLY in the state-created exchanges, not in the federal-state partnerships or the federally created exchanges.
However, 34 states have decided not to play the ObamaCare game and opted for a federally created exchange or the partnership, which means the federal subsidies will not be available to millions of middle- and lower-income workers in those states.
And without the subsidies, insurance would become unaffordable under ObamaCare for the vast majority of those families. They would thus be exempted from the mandate to have coverage, and their employers would be exempted from the penalty for not providing it.
In other words, the most draconian part of ObamaCare would essentially be defunded. Bingo!
Oklahoma is suing the feds to establish this point.
There are other aspects to the lawsuit, involving the IRS punitive enforcement measures against large employers, which National Review has nicely summarized.
A Federal judge overruled the governments contention that Pruitt lacked standing to proceed with the suit in August.
Will Oklahoma continue to fight this battle alone?
Hope Upon Hope Oklahoma Continues Their Suit Against ACA-ObamaCare
bmac32 wrote:
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitts year-old lawsuit to bring down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beginning to receive more attention now that Obamacare has endured the first week of its square-wheeled rollout.
Taking a different approach than that employed by the 28 States that lost a Constitutional argument before the Supreme Court, Oklahoma is arguing that the law stands against itself by following separate tracks for those States which create their own insurance exchanges (and agree to fund the attendant expansion of Medicaid), and those States that have Federally-managed exchanges imposed because they refused to participate in implementing the law (or the Medicaid expansion).
The Act specifies that only low-income residents in States that have agreed to expand Medicaid and institute their own health care exchange programs are eligible to receive the promised insurance premium subsidies. Residents of States that dont participate in Obamacare, by contrast, are not eligible to receive those subsidies even if they buy Obamacare insurance plans through the Federal exchange program.
Merrill Matthews at Forbes explained back in July how Oklahoma is arguing that dichotomy knocks part of the Obamacare law out of step with its own requirements:
The liberals writing the law assumed the vast majority of states would create their own exchange. But just to make sure, they included a carrot that clearly says that the federal subsidies are available ONLY in the state-created exchanges, not in the federal-state partnerships or the federally created exchanges.
However, 34 states have decided not to play the ObamaCare game and opted for a federally created exchange or the partnership, which means the federal subsidies will not be available to millions of middle- and lower-income workers in those states.
And without the subsidies, insurance would become unaffordable under ObamaCare for the vast majority of those families. They would thus be exempted from the mandate to have coverage, and their employers would be exempted from the penalty for not providing it.
In other words, the most draconian part of ObamaCare would essentially be defunded. Bingo!
Oklahoma is suing the feds to establish this point.
There are other aspects to the lawsuit, involving the IRS punitive enforcement measures against large employers, which National Review has nicely summarized.
A Federal judge overruled the governments contention that Pruitt lacked standing to proceed with the suit in August.
Will Oklahoma continue to fight this battle alone?
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitts year-old ... (
show quote)
Wow! Thanks for posting that! Where are the other states on this? Come on Texas! The big game (U.T. vs.O.U.) is over! We need to help out here! This law is not about healthcare, it's about control and redistribution of wealth. Kind of odd how it won't hurt the truly wealthy much.
The wealthy will not be hurt, the poor will benefit and the middle class will slowly fade away.
archie bunker wrote:
Wow! Thanks for posting that! Where are the other states on this? Come on Texas! The big game (U.T. vs.O.U.) is over! We need to help out here! This law is not about healthcare, it's about control and redistribution of wealth. Kind of odd how it won't hurt the truly wealthy much.
bmac32 wrote:
The wealthy will not be hurt, the poor will benefit and the middle class will slowly fade away.
You're right. Nowadays everyone is seperated by " class". Upper, middle, and low. It seems like the government has decided three is too many. Or maybe we'll have the rich, the politically powerful, the poor who won't work, and the worker bees in between to support it all. What the hell am I thinking? WE ARE THERE! I don't mind carrying my own water, but this is just plain stupid!
Believe classes have been around for a long time but more and more are losing their jobs then homes. Right now we have 7 house in the area for sale 5 of which job looses. People acoss the street will be next because they have very little business.
archie bunker wrote:
You're right. Nowadays everyone is seperated by " class". Upper, middle, and low. It seems like the government has decided three is too many. Or maybe we'll have the rich, the politically powerful, the poor who won't work, and the worker bees in between to support it all. What the hell am I thinking? WE ARE THERE! I don't mind carrying my own water, but this is just plain stupid!
archie bunker wrote:
You're right. Nowadays everyone is seperated by " class". Upper, middle, and low. It seems like the government has decided three is too many. Or maybe we'll have the rich, the politically powerful, the poor who won't work, and the worker bees in between to support it all. What the hell am I thinking? WE ARE THERE! I don't mind carrying my own water, but this is just plain stupid!
obummer and the democrats want 2 classes: the rich and the "government dependent". Kind of reminds me of Russia in the "old days".
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.