Bombshell: Federal judge suddenly green-lights lawsuit that could stop Obamacare in its tracks


#1

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law.

The Affordable Care Act forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own health care exchange, according to a group of small businesses whose lawsuit got a key hearing Monday in federal court.

The Obama administration, according to their lawsuit, has ignored that language in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued Healthcare.gov website.

Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance.

But the IRS overstepped its authority by paying subsidies in those states anyway, say the businesses and their lawyers.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2471978/Bombshell-Federal-judge-suddenly-green-lights-lawsuit-stop-Obamacare-tracks.html#ixzz2iU0roFDZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Obama not following the law - say it isn’t so.


#2

This brave, lawful soul is about to be crushed by a vicious Marxist tidal wave of verbal assault. :shrug: Rob


#3

This is one generous umpire. How many strikes is that - 20, 21?

If the law is so sound, why not follow it as written? I cannot believe anyone is surprised by this.


#4

This was written in 2012

Could one word take down Obamacare?


#5

Maybe someone should have read it before it became law.

Just sayin’.:shrug:

Peace

Tim


#6

Well, all the Tea Party Republicans have been saying that Obamacare needs to be improved. Here is a chance to see if they really meant it by passing a law to correct this provision.


#7

#8

This doesn’t affect the states who have implemented their own exchanges, though. That was supposed to be the original intent anyway, AFAIK. The other states lost, Medicaid and everything else if this ruling is upheld. Good luck to their governors.


#9

Pelosi: We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it

:confused::eek::rolleyes:


#10

Where did you ever hear that?

Just so you know - repeal is an improvement.


#11

I always thought it had a good chance of getting eliminated since the Supreme Court said it could be a tax and all taxes have to originate in the House, ACA started in the Senate.


#12

I thought there was that possibility too. But technically it was passed in the House and then the Senate, with committees working on resolving the differences. At least I think that’s why the SC never considered it an issue.


#13

You know, I wonder if this does indeed stop Obamacare if it will also stop the unconstitutional HHS Mandate?


#14

But can you really picture a law, designed to be nationwide, applying to only 24 states and being successful? I would expect this administration to do something really dreadful if this judgment is upheld, like dedicating all of the Obamataxes to the favored 24 states in order to pressure the other 36 into compliance with its wishes. But to do that and expect a favorable political result, and all because the Democrats couldn’t write a law without creating chaos?

Politically, I have a feeling that would be a bridge too far, even for Obama and his media.


#15

Can they enforce the Obama Taxes in the 36 states if they have elected not to participate?


#16

The USSC didn’t address that because that wasn’t the issue brought before them, I don’t believe. The question was specifically to address whether or not the individual mandate was constitutional, not whether or not the law was passed legally. But I suppose they can expand their scope, they just did not.


#17

How would passing a law that “fixes” Obamacare be an improvement? :slight_smile:


#18

De-funding it would “fix” it quite well. :slight_smile:


#19

Not holding my breath.


#20

Much like an old, beat up, non-drivable, dangerous to be around clunker that isn’t worth repairing, the insurance companies will generally write it off as a total loss rather that nickel and dime themselves to death just to keep the piece of garbage loping along well below the speed of a sloth with a broken foot.

Yep, that’s your signature piece of legislation, Mr. President. Nice job.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.