Anyone understand the OK lawsuit?

[william the wie]

OK here is what is being claimed:

That Pelosi wrote the bill so that if the Supreme Court threw out the state mandate no penalties could be charged in those states without exchanges. (If this is true and lower courts seem to have ruled that this is the case, why and how did she do that?)

Further it seems that non-compliant, cheaper, healthcare will be available in the states without networks. (Is this is true can someone explain why it is true?)

 

[MeBelle]

OK here is what is being claimed:

That Pelosi wrote the bill so that if the Supreme Court threw out the state mandate no penalties could be charged in those states without exchanges. (If this is true and lower courts seem to have ruled that this is the case, why and how did she do that?)

Further it seems that non-compliant, cheaper, healthcare will be available in the states without networks. (Is this is true can someone explain why it is true?)

"Perhaps the most closely watched lawsuits are those in the District of Columbia, Virginia, Oklahoma and Indiana that, ironically, accept the law's wording at face value.

One of the cases, Halbig v. Sebelius, will be back in federal district court in the District of Columbia on Tuesday. Judge Paul Friedman has said he will rule by mid-February. Another case in Virginia could be decided before the end of the year.

"If the courts rule for us, a majority of the country is not going to be under the subsidy provisions," says Sam Kazman, general counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is coordinating the legal action. "Politically, that has a huge impact."

Long-shot legal challenges to health care law abound | Pacific Daily News | guampdn.com


Halbig v. Sebelius

 

[william the wie]

If the law is gutted in 35 of 50 states then buy Uhaul and Ryder stock, a lot of people will hit the road.

 

[Amelia]

This seems way different from executive orders changing deadlines. There's a huge difference between saying, "we're experiencing turbulence so we'll focus on this deadline now and put the other one off." And this is even different from the semantics of calling a mandate a tax to allow it to sidestep the 10th amendment problem.

This is changing the law and claiming it applies -- penalties and all -- to people it didn't apply to when you signed it.

This seems like a biggie.

 

[william the wie]

This seems way different from executive orders changing deadlines. There's a huge difference between saying, "we're experiencing turbulence so we'll focus on this deadline now and put the other one off." And this is even different from the semantics of calling a mandate a tax to allow it to sidestep the 10th amendment problem.

This is changing the law and claiming it applies -- penalties and all -- to people it didn't apply to when you signed it.

This seems like a biggie.

Potentially it is.

The final ruling won't be heard for nearly 11 months.

This kind of violation of the rule of law in the application of such an unpopular and purely partisan bill may literally be unprecedented and is certainly rare. That opens up the possibility of a huge can of worms.

On the otherhand the Supremes can point to their own previous rulings on ACA and simply imply that Holder et al are a pack of well meaning idiots opening a medium can of worms.

A third possibility is a narrow ruling that ACA does not apply to any state or local government or their employees. That could lead to a small can of worms.

A fourth possibility is that the administration is sustained. I don't see that as possible but who knows?