Skip to content

Could the lack of State exchanges bring Obamacare down?

December 2, 2013

 I do not know if this story is true, but if it is it could possibly signal the death of Obamacare. According to the story the healthcare law only gives the Federal government the authority to penalize people for not purchasing healthcare insurance if the state in which they reside has set up a state exchange.

According to the letter of the law, the government can only reward subsidies and levy penalties in states that have created Obamacare state exchanges

While the president’s health law is vast and extraordinarily complex, it is in one respect very simple,” Pruitt wrote in a Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Subsidies are only to be made available, and tax penalties for not signing up for health insurance are only to be assessed, in states that create their own health-care exchange.”

  To date only 16 states (and Washington DC) have set up their own exchanges, the other states are either using the Federal exchange or have a state-federal partnership exchange set up. This means that revenues would fall about $1 trillion short of projections.

“What that means is that’s almost a trillion dollars of funding for Obamacare that cannot come to be,” D.C. attorney Joe diGenova told WMAL radio Monday morning

 Without this money  it is hard to see how Obamacare can not implode under its own weight, so what has the Obama regime’s response been? They are ignoring the law (I know that is hard to believe!) and are trying to enforce the penalty on people who live in states which have not set up their own state exchange.

“Now, the administration has taken the position that, ‘Oh, I know that’s what the law says — that it has to be a state, but what it really means is the federal exchange too.’ 

  In a little reported story, the state of Oklahoma is suing the Federal government on these grounds and this story needs to be watched closely.

“This could be the single most important piece of litigation in all of this criticism of Obamacare, and it’s gone on almost completely unnoticed,” diGenova continued. “This is amazing.”

  It is not surprising that the Obama regime would be willing to ignore the law for they have shown in the past their utter disrespect for the law, but Obamacare’s future may hang in the balance of the courts. This is still a long shot, however, because if this case does make it to the Supreme Court the law could rest in the balance of the compromised Chief Justice John Roberts.

18 Comments leave one →
  1. Brittius's avatar
    December 2, 2013 8:52 pm

    Reblogged this on Brittius.com.

    Like

  2. Petermc3's avatar
    Petermc3 permalink
    December 2, 2013 9:06 pm

    Before reaching the second paragraph I said to myself , self, either Obama or Sybellius may choose to ignore or change this bump in the road knowing neither congress nor the courts would dare interfere. Executive privilege I has morphed into one man rule .

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 2, 2013 9:09 pm

      And you were right, Obama rewrites the laws as he sees fit so why would this be any different? Is there any doubt we are under a dictatorship at this point?

      Like

  3. Invisible Mikey's avatar
    December 2, 2013 9:10 pm

    The story is indeed the true opinion of one person, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, and no one else. I’m no lawyer, so I don’t know if his reading of the law is correct. You would think this issue would have come up in the Supreme court case before.

    It’s also true that the law was envisioned and designed with the assumption that a majority of states would set up their own exchanges. When they didn’t, it became a factor in the IT nightmare.

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 2, 2013 9:13 pm

      You are correct and I am with you, we do not know if this interpretation is correct or not, that will be up to the courts to decide. He could be grasping at straws here, we will know when the courts weigh in on this.

      Like

  4. Laura Bernard Mielcarek's avatar
    December 2, 2013 11:57 pm

    I read about this back in April. Obama instructed the IRS to ‘fix’ this part of the law. Just another of obama’s unconstitutional ‘changes’ to the law.

    http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/obamacare-federal-exchange_at-odds-with-the-law

    Like

  5. aurorawatcherak's avatar
    December 3, 2013 12:30 am

    If true, that would be a delicious irony. Pelosi didn’t read it before she pushed it through and someone missed it. Yummo!

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 3, 2013 6:37 am

      It sure has been fun to watch, hasn’t it!?

      Like

      • aurorawatcherak's avatar
        December 3, 2013 3:25 pm

        There’s a sadistic mean side to me that loves to see it, but then there’s a pragmatic me who sees how much we’re squandering with this mess and recognizes my kids are facing adulthoods spent in economic depression because of our generation’s stupidity. Being against it doesn’t mean we’re not responsible for it, imo.

        Like

      • Steve Dennis's avatar
        December 3, 2013 7:58 pm

        I agree, it would take a heart of stone not to find some sense of “see I told you so” after years of trying to warn people this would happen. I would be laughing if it was not for the fact that my two boys are going to have to live with this.

        Like

  6. rjjrdq's avatar
    December 3, 2013 12:37 am

    Nice to see Oklahoma stepping up once again on a critical issue. Some good people there.

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 3, 2013 6:38 am

      Let’s hope this goes somewhere but at least people have not given up the fight yet.

      Like

  7. Chris's avatar
    Chris permalink
    December 3, 2013 3:17 am

    All it takes is the death of one conservative justice and the outcome of any Supreme Court case will be flipped from what it might have been. The Senate has the nuclear option in play. So who is it going to be?

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      December 3, 2013 6:39 am

      That is a scary thought, isn’t it? Even the Heller case came only one vote shy of saying the second amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.

      Like

Leave a reply to rjjrdq Cancel reply