Posted on 02/19/2014 12:50:21 PM PST by bestintxas
A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit that claims Obamacare subsidies can only be paid to individuals in states that set up their own healthcare exchanges, even though the Affordable Care Act was worded that way.
According to The Washington Times, four Virginia residents filed the lawsuit because the Obamacare subsidy in their state makes them subject to the law's individual mandate, which requires most Americans to purchase health insurance this year or face a fine.
The decision has been a setback for Republican lawmakers and limited government advocates seeking to roll back the scope of the law, and who criticize the Obama administration for making unilateral decisions about the way the federal healthcare law should be applied.
"While on the surface, Plaintiffs' plain meaning interpretation of [that section of the law] has a certain common sense appeal, the lack of any support in the legislative history of the ACA indicates that it is not a viable theory," wrote U.S. District Court Judge James Spencer in his decision, according to the Times.
Without the subsidy, the plaintiffs would have qualified for a financial-hardship exemption because the cheapest plan available on the federal Obamacare exchange exceeds 8 percent of their projected 2014 household income.
Similar lawsuits are in progress in other states and, if successful, millions of Americans would not be eligible for the subsidie,s which are a fundamental element to the viability of the new law.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Easier to judge-shop.
Henry Bowman; cleanup in aisle 9.
Roberts set the predicate for the Courts.
Escalation needed. Another SCOTUS challenge?
Almost all federal judges believe in and support big government, and will never rule to find it unconstitutional. The federal judiciary is in the back pocket of Leviathan.
Case closed.
Exactly. I gave up hoping that the courts would do the right thing when Roberts proved what a wuss he is
I agree. The only thing of value to be gained from going to court is the self satisfaction in having made an attempt to stand on principle. Otherwise it is a waste of the plaintiff's and taxpayers money.
James Spencer, in other words, is ignoring the PLAIN MEANING and COMMON SENSE APPEAL of the law. He is doing this OPENLY, PROUDLY, AND WITHOUT APOLOGY.
This is how ridiculous we have become: JUDGES writing the LAW to fit whatever ideology they think is appropriate.
This is not liberty, it is statism.
What’s your suggestion?
 |
 |
 America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi! |
 |
 |
Basically, the allegation of the plaintiffs is that the legislation was intentionally drafted to exclude the federal exchange from the subsidies, as an inducement to the states to set up their own exchanges.
The government says no, the Federal exchange was always intended to be like the state exchanges with regard to the subsidies, and that the exclusion of mentioning the Federal exchange was a mistake.
Both judges that have ruled on this issue have made the same point that there is not enough evidence for the plaintiff’s point, and so the claim that it was just a mistake that should be corrected administratively should be accepted.
Re-federalize the consolidated government, as per the plan of our framers.
Divide power once again between a federal government and the states that created it. When senators are once again appointed by the states, there isn't a chance that anti-10th Amendment loser lawyers would find a cozy home on a federal bench anywhere.
Article V.
Most federal judges are robed apes.
but you seek to do so without resorting to elections. What is the mechanism you have in mind for effecting that goal?
No kidding. I concur, in spades. Republicans, even conservatives, have been far too polite to be seen in the streets, or ever being fussy in public.
Rather, we sit around waiting for the ballot every two years and wonder why things are exponentially worse every election.
Other countries are fighting for their lives, tooth and nail.
But..... between the two year ballot we’ve got internet to sit around and vent on, keeping us quiet and occupied— impotent.
Roberts "legacy" is to have scuttled the SCOTUS.
If the court’s interpretation is correct, what reason or incentive was there for any state to go through the bother and expense of setting up their own exchange?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.