Skip to comments.ObamaCare's Next Legal Challenge (More bad news for Hussein's signature achievement)
Posted on 12/02/2013 3:38:46 AM PST by Zakeet
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 statesincluding 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Don’t you mean former lawyer? Didn’t both he and his lovely wife have to resign from the bar for some unknown reasons, or am I thinking of some other highly-placed Illinois celebrity grifter couple?
.....signature act is in deep trouble.
wishful thinking ,, this is years away ,, years in which it will become entrenched.
Deem it passed.
Another example of why the filibuster was repealed so that the DC circuit court could be packed with Obama yes-men.
We are playing a rigged game here.
There's that pesky period again. You know, the one that acts as more of an asterisk.
Congress lacks the cajones to challenge any of Obama's extra-Constitutional acts. Period.
“Another example of why the filibuster was repealed so that the DC circuit court could be packed with Obama yes-men.
We are playing a rigged game here.”
It will be instantly appealed to the higher court. The DC circuit court is not the end of litigation as long as there are appeals to make.
LMAO Yes: a Higher Court with two liberal Lesbians, one old liberal woman, one man who votes with them most of the time and a Chief Justice in Obama’s pocket.
Don’t call that a court, it’s become a joke since Roberts last sold us out.
TOTALITARIANS are f FORCING us pay the BILL for NO RIGHTS.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
A pre-meditated, amplified lie. The party agreed in lock-step, the USSC sanctioned the deception.
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
“Dont call that a court, its become a joke since Roberts last sold us out.”
Well, you’ve got that right. I loathe Roberts, who sold out his own people. Still think Obama had something on him. Both disgust me.
That's going to be a tough sell, no matter what they've got on Roberts. IIRC, the evidence on this one is clear - the language to authorize the subsidy (and hence the penalties) for federal exchanges was omitted on purpose to get the CBO scoring under $1T - saying that Congress intended to do something that Congress explicitly did the opposite of is too much of a stretch even by the Roberts standard.