Lawsuit Could Permanently Cripple Obamacare.


Close to a year ago now, I wrote an article about a lawsuit being filed against Obamacare. That lawsuit is close to ending. The judges are apparently close to making their decision.

Obamacare could become permanently crippled within the next few days.

On Fox News, we read:

A few blocks down the street from where the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, a powerful federal appeals court is preparing its own decision in a case that could cause serious complications for ObamaCare.

The case, Halbig v Sebelius, is a major legal challenge that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them.

A ruling could come as early as Friday.

In the case, the plaintiff claims the Obama administration – in particular, the Internal Revenue Service — is breaking the law by offering tax subsidies in all 50 states to offset the cost of health insurance. The suit maintains that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges — of which there are only 14 — and does not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system, commonly known as

In layman’s terms: The Obamacare Law, as it is written, does not allow healthcare subsidies to insurance buyers from the Federal Exchange, According to the actual letter of the law, only the State Exchanges are eligible for subsidies. The problem here is that not every state has erected it’s own State healthcare Exchange program; only 14 states have done this. The other 36 states have opted to just stick with the Federal Exchange. Why? Mostly because these states do not want to waste the money. Why make their own if people can just use the Federal Exchange for the same result?

The Feds, specifically the IRS, have been handing out subsidies to buyers from the Federal Exchange anyway. They are not allowed to do this without Congressional authorization. But Congress has not authorized it. If the vote were taken now, Congress would not authorize it. But the bureaucrats administering the program are taking it upon themselves to offer the subsidies anyway. It seems clear to me that this is a matter of sheer error; the law was supposed to include language allowing subsidies for federal buyers, but they simply forgot to include it. Everybody listened to Nancy Pelosi and chose not to read the program before it become law. It may have been an “honest” mistake, but that doesn’t matter. The letter of the law says “No federal subsidies.” The IRS is basically saying “We know they meant to include federal subsidies, so we’ll provide them anyway.” But that goes against the law. Can bureaucracies be allowed to just re-interpret the law as they see fit? If so, then rule of law by democratic vote is basically an illusion, because bureaucracies can apparently choose to re-interpret and apply any law in whatever manner they see fit.

Overall impact of a ruling against Obamacare: buyers in the 36 states without state-level exchanges will not be able to take advantage of Obamacare subsidies. This will unequivocally cripple the program. Subsidies are the lifeblood of Obamacare. Without the federal subsidies, Obamacare just becomes a bunch of overtly expensive insurance plans that barely anyone can afford.

A ruling against the subsidies would mark the biggest blow to ObamaCare to date, and would threaten the entire foundation of the newly devised health care system. A total of $1 trillion in subsidies is projected to be doled out over the next decade…

The success of ObamaCare is particularly dependent on getting young, healthy people to sign up. If the subsidies are stripped and prices skyrocket, it’s unlikely that many younger people will want to sign up.

Obamacare needs young and healthy people to sign up. This fact is usually reported in the Mainstream Media, because it really is a central tenet of the program that cannot be ignored. But they do not often explain why this is so. Why is it so important? Because Obamacare is about ripping off young people to subsidize old people. The program needs young, healthy people to buy health insurance they do not need so that the money can be spent on old people instead. It’s all about screwing over younger voters, who have little clout, in favor of holder voters, who have major clout.

Of course, as the Fox article goes on to mention, even a ruling against Obamacare will be tied up in the courts for months, if not years. The lawsuit may still be killed somehwere along the line. The entire weight of the federal government, alongside the large healthcare and insurance corporations, will be thrown against such as ruling. A lot of very rich politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations have a lot of money riding on the implementation of Obamacare. But a ruling against Obamacare would be a step in the right direction, at least.


Tags: , , , , ,

One Comment on “Lawsuit Could Permanently Cripple Obamacare.”

  1. TK July 20, 2014 at 6:12 pm #

    Won’t those younger voters become older voters in a few decades? Won’t they want health insurance too? Why not be sure everyone has health insurance? We can afford it easily as a nation. Obamacare might not be an ideal solution, but since many on the right don’t care about the healthcare of fellow citizens, a imperfect compromise was all that we could pass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: