Four New Challenges to Obamacare: Can Any of Them Possibly Win in Court?

Townhall.com ^ | October 31, 2013 | Mike Shedlock

[reformedliberal]

Now, if we could get them to understand that the *tax refund* is really a sanction. Like the kids in ‘Hansel & Gretel”, they are seduced by all the candy.

[redpoll]

It all works to the advantage of Obama and the left in their march toward consolidation of the federal government. If Obamacare remains on the books, there is a platform for increasing totalitarian intrusion into the lives of individuals. If any of the court challenges block all or part of the law, there will be chaos and confusion, which will lead the left to scream for a simple system where the government runs all medical care, period. Viola. It’s all good. For them, that is.

[Mack the knife]

But 36 states have decided against opening exchanges for now. Although the law permits the federal government to open exchanges instead, it does not say tax credits may be given to those who buy insurance through a federally run exchange.

---

The ACA authors wanted all the States to have their own exchanges. To make sure this happened, the ACA contained a carrot, two clubs to hit the State over the head with, and a linked provision:
1) If a State built an exchange, and people signed up for Medicaid, the HHS would fund it for the first few years;
2) if a State didn’t open an exchange, all medicaid payments would be withheld;
3) if a State didn’t open an exchange, the State citizens would not get subsidies.
4) if a full time employee of a [more than 50 full timers] company was not offered healthcare insurance, and signed up on an STATE exchange, the company would be fined.

The little bastards thought they were being clever to capture every State into Obamacare — they didn’t think that a single State would refuse, but just in case they added the Federal Exchange capability, not completely thought out ... so maybe they were too clever:
* Roberts (7-2) declared item 1 to be unconstitutional - HHS could not withhold medicaid payments (different law)
* Big businesses went to State Legislatures and said: “hey — no exchange, no fine on us.”

So 36 States looked at the cost of setting up and funding the exchanges, the uncertainty of more medicaid funding, the [no exchange no fines] feature, and said ... no thanks.

Now the ACA authors have observed that the club [no exchange, no subsidies] has turned into a carrot [no exchange, no Fines!], and are now claiming that they were just kidding, they really meant to have subsidies (and thus fines) even for the Federal Exchanges for States that don’t have their own. They are arguing that the text of the law is trumped by the objectives of the law, and so the Supreme Court should rewrite the law for them.

They have a problem: the plain reading of the text of the law is against them

[babbabooey]

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” - - - Chief Justice John Roberts

Oh OK... then remind me why we need the Supreme Court again?

Un-F'n-Believable! Do we need a Constitutional Amendment that requires every Justice to have the 10th Amendment tattooed to their forehead!