Skip to comments.The Case That Could Topple Obamacare
Posted on 12/19/2013 2:29:24 AM PST by maddog55
Obamacare may have its problems, including more bugs than you can find in the cornfields of Nebraska, but its legal worries were meant to end after the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, the heart of the Affordable Care Act.
Now, as the technologists charged with making healthcare.gov work report progress, lawyers are re-entering the fray. A little-heard of challenge currently making its way through the court system may represent opponents last best hope of, as they are fond of saying, driving a stake through the heart of the law.
It all started in 2011, when Jonathan H. Adler, a conservative law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, shot an email to his friend Michael Cannon, a health policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Adler thought he had spotted an error in Obamacare that could unravel a significant portion of the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Fingers & toes crossed. . . .
[Carvin may be confident, but critics have variously called Cannon and Adlers theory preposterous, screwy and a Republican fantasy.]
When Liberals use name calling - then they are saying the fight is over and the liberals lost!
This is good news - hope it stands and the ACA dies!
Calling John Roberts! Calling John Roberts! Clean-up needed in aisle 3! Bring your knee pads, boy! Calling John Roberts!
ANLYSIS Obama called Americans' cancelled health plans "substandard". Ergo, a good lawyer would construct his legal arguments around the fact that Obama means Americans must buy plans HE likes---plans he specifically designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals......
......same as a state lottery redistributes income to education, etc.....to achieve socially beneficial goals......
In Obama's calculated view, "some" Americans must now pay first-class fares for coach seats so that "hand-picked" Americans can pay less, and receive extra benefits.
O/Care induces every American into paying into the program. "Some" people win subsidies, tax breaks, deferments, exemptions, etc, while others are losers---excluded from these benefits.
Obama picking winner and losers raises legal questions that Obamacare is an illegal lottery. By picking winners and losers.....a court might decide O/Care is an illegal lottery.
REFERENCE (I'm sure the law books have better examples): The following is an example of a Federal Statute defining Lottery:
According to 12 USCS § 25a, lottery" includes any arrangement whereby three or more persons (the "participants") advance money or credit to another in exchange for the possibility or expectation that one or more but not all of the participants (the "winners") will receive by reason of their advances more than the amounts they have advanced, the identity of the winners being determined by any means which includes--
(A) a random selection;
(B) a game, race, or contest; or
(C) any record or tabulation of the result of one or more events in which any participant has no interest except for its bearing upon the possibility that he may become a winner. (SOURCE uslegal.com/lotteries)
It's a lot broader than one instance.
If a taxpayer is not paying for it directly, then he or she is paying for it with higher taxes in order to "subsidize" the purchase. Subsidies are a scam.
Why do people keep falling for the premise that anything the government gives them is free? Why do they not understand that their tax monies actually pay for that "free" stuff--after a sufficient amount is extracted to pay the bureaucrats to run the program--and more is extracted to pay for the items for non-taxpayers--so that the "free" stuff costs even more than it would if purchased directly?
You can bet that the solution will be to turn it into a REAL tax on real income just like Medicare....except it’s worse, you pay for the policy and the tax.
But where are those “CJ Roberts, Super Genius” defenders lately?
Roberts folded last time, he will fold again and again (in defense of his indefensible Rule last time).
No one but a lawyer could seriously stand up here and tell you that north means south, black means white and state means federal. And all you need to do is read the statute and know that that is what the law is.
Well, Justice Roberts did in his interpretation that a mandate was a tax, when all along proponents of Obamacare argued that it wasn’t a tax.
Afraid I agree. The solution to Obamacare and Obama's regulatory rule on so many fronts won't be found through the courts.
Is this the reason why Harry Reid changed the Senate rules on the Filibuster so that the 3 judges waiting for confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals could be installed?
...where are those CJ Roberts, Super Genius defenders lately?
I believe most of them cried themselves to sleep quite awhile ago. They believed the whore loved them personally.
The article avoids two issues:
a) The Liberal belief system assumes that if you pass a law, people will obey it (that is how they ignore the actual results).
b) An integral part of the ACA was that, if a State refused to set up an exchange, then ALL Medicaid funds would be withheld (this was their stick).
c) the carrot was that when the States set up their exchanges, they could also get additional medicaid funds by relaxing their standards for eligibility, and their citizens would be eligible for subsidies. Note - if an employee took a subsidy, their employer was now subject to fines. See, it all fit together.
The ACA architects thought the carrot and stick were sufficient to force everyone not under Medicare into the ACA system.
Then Roberts ruled that the FedGov could not extort the States by withholding funds allocated under a different law (i.e., Medicaid) if a State did not set up an exchange. So 36 States refused to set up an exchange, and HHS and the IRS had to reverse course and plead that the plain language of the law did not mean what it said. [Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes].