Oklahoma Lawsuit Challenges Wording of Obamacare Statute

SUBSIDIES INTENDED FOR “STATE EXCHANGES,” NOT FEDERAL

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 9, 2013) — In his daily internet video presentation on Wednesday, commentator Dick Morris discussed a lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known colloquially as “Obamacare,” that contends that the assignment of subsidies to health care applicants through the federal portal defies the meaning and intent of the law as written.

The suit, filed by Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt in January 2011, challenges the law’s applicability to all customers, as the wording of the statute says that subsidies will apply only to customers who enroll in Obamacare through a state-run exchange.  The wording was reportedly written to promote the establishment of health care exchanges by the states; however, only 16 states and the District of Columbia agreed to establish their own exchanges.   Residents of other states must use the federal website, healthcare.gov, to enroll in an approved plan.

Oklahoma did not set up its own insurance exchange.  The Obama regime has “interpreted” the wording to apply to applicants in both state and federal exchanges.

If subsidies are awarded according to Pruitt’s interpretation of the law, then many Americans applying for health care coverage will not be able to afford it.

In July, Forbes posed the question of whether or not Obama “would obey a court order to stand down until the issue is resolved” if the courts were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs’ contention that subsidies cannot be applied to federal exchange applicants because the statute does not specifically authorize it.

The rollout of Obamacare has been plagued with dysfunctional websites, long wait times, unproductive phone communications, disappearing passwords, and recent revelations of exorbitant premiums.  Potential criminals hired as “navigators” whose backgrounds have not been checked will have access to the personal information of anyone enrolling.  Personal information will be filtered through a “data hub” and possibly shared with the IRS and law enforcement.

Many experts fear that the system was inadequately tested and is ripe for identity theft on a grand scale.

Morris believes that if the lawsuit survives additional judicial scrutiny, it could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court by next fall.

A separate lawsuit emanating from Oklahoma by four Christian universities claims that the same exemptions provided to churches and their organizations should also apply to religious institutions of higher learning.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate part of the bill which requires all citizens to carry health insurance or face a fine, could be interpreted as a tax rather than a penalty.

The Obama regime has admitted that the Affordable Care Act is an increment toward its desire to establish a single-payer health care system, meaning that the federal government would become directly financially responsible for the care which every American receives, as in China or Cuba.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.