[Alberta's Child]

ObamaCare didn't have a major victory here. Here's the key legal point (emphasis is mine):

The case, Coons vs. Lew, was initially brought to court in 2011 by business owner Nick Coons and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Eric Novack. The two, with the help of additional legal backing, alleged that the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, would trim Medicare costs and potentially hurt their business by instituting reimbursement levels that wouldn't cover their own expenses.

...

In August 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco dismissed the case by noting that that the IPAB didn't do any direct harm to either Nick Coons' business or Dr. Eric Novack. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the earliest point at which the IPAB would assert its power and potentially reduce Medicare reimbursements would be in 2019.

I'd like to know what idiot lawyers ever let these guys pursue this case in the first place. One of the basic principles of law is that you don't have any standing to file a lawsuit unless one of the following two conditions is met: (1) you are suffering some kind of loss or harm (and this means actual loss or harm now, not potential loss or harm sometime in the future; and/or (2) you are facing some kind of harm or loss that cannot be remedied through financial recompense (if you are in danger of bodily harm or death, for example).

For a medical practitioner or business owner to file a lawsuit based on what might happen in 2019 is preposterous. This is precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court didn't even agree to hear this case.

[digger48]

Thank you for pointing that out

[usconservative]

For a medical practitioner or business owner to file a lawsuit based on what might happen in 2019 is preposterous. This is precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court didn't even agree to hear this case.

Additionally, no one's "forcing" these doctors (at least yet ...) to provide services to Obamacare recipients. They can simply drop participation and be done with it.

My doctor has signs up that he DOES NOT ACCEPT Obamacare. He was listed in their "directory" without his consent, never signed up for the program yet every day his office is fending off calls from Obamacare recipients wanting to make appointments.

I wonder if he's got a case ..........

[Paladin2]

Dynamic scoring is better than static scoring. Laws with effective dates in the future should be reviewed NOW.

[vette6387]

“For a medical practitioner or business owner to file a lawsuit based on what might happen in 2019 is preposterous. This is precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t even agree to hear this case. “

And that’s why it isn’t any sort of earthshaking decision. Since there was no harm in evidence (yet), The plaintiffs had no standing. W/O Standing, there could be no case.l Dems be the rules.

[Bob434]

[[For a medical practitioner or business owner to file a lawsuit based on what might happen in 2019 is preposterous.]]

Hell, we’re facign trillions in fines taxes and carbon footprint charges over climate change based on ‘what might happen 200 years from now’

[jwalsh07]

Bingo. They may take the case in the future and rule on the merits. Or they may not.

[OneWingedShark]

One of the basic principles of law is that you don't have any standing to file a lawsuit unless one of the following two conditions is met: (1) you are suffering some kind of loss or harm (and this means actual loss or harm now, not potential loss or harm sometime in the future; and/or (2) you are facing some kind of harm or loss that cannot be remedied through financial recompense (if you are in danger of bodily harm or death, for example).

Question: When did Standing become a legal doctrine?
(Much later than a lot of people realize.)