When Obamacare was passed through Congress, calculations were made. The Democrats made the assumption that most states would support the law and would gladly jump on the band wagon of the health insurance exchanges. After the dust settled down and the insurance exchanges are about to go online October 1, that turned out to not be the case. Over half of the states, 33 to be exact, have refused to participate in the exchanges. That left the Obama administration scrambling. Their law specifically prohibits the large employers in these states from being subject to the employer mandate.I have made the case before that Obamacare was meant to be so open-ended that it could mean anything. We are seeing thousands of pages of new rules being written, both by the Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS. The open-ended interpretation of Obamacare gives them the chance to do this. In other words, if the law doesn't contain a particular provision, no problem. They just make it up as they go along. Such is the case that involves a lawsuit by Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his original suit in January 2011, charging that the federal government was stepping past what the law outlined. The federal government has tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but that motion was denied yesterday. This comes from the Attorney General's office, via The McCarville Report.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt Monday won the state’s first challenge against the Affordable Care Act after a federal judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case.Judge Ronald White issued the decision Monday afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in Muskogee.This is nothing new for the Obama administration. They are in the habit of making rules to match whatever requirement they deem necessary. If the original legislation doesn't contain the rule, that's not a problem. They just write it in, basically amending a law passed by Congress, without the consent of Congress. Scott Pruitt filed the lawsuit to challenge that practice and the court agreed that the case could go forward.
“The court rejected the federal government’s argument that Oklahoma lacked standing to challenge the law, allowing us to proceed with this pivotal case,” General Pruitt said. “We’re optimistic the court will recognize what states have known for months that the IRS disregarded the law by making the large employer mandate effective in Oklahoma or in any of the 33 other states without a state health care exchange.”
Oklahoma challenged implementation of the Affordable Care Act after the IRS finalized a rule that would allow the federal government to punish “large employers,” including local government, with millions of dollars in tax penalties in states without state health care exchanges, which is not allowed under the health care law.
“Congress provided a choice for Oklahoma and other states in implementation of the health care law, and the IRS is attempting to take that away by rule,” General Pruitt said. “The administration miscalculated how many states would support this law, so now they’re using the IRS to push through provisions that Congress did not pass.”
Oklahoma’s original lawsuit was filed in January 2011. In September, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision, General Pruitt filed an amended complaint to raise issues related to the law’s implementation.
I am not a legal expert. Even if I was, I wouldn't venture a guess as to how this case will be decided. After the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare was constitutional, by changing the definition of a word or phrase, all bets are off on that. I will say this case goes to the very heart of Obamacare and its implementation. By at least allowing it to go forward, the federal court recognizes that Oklahoma and the other states involved in the lawsuit do have the proper standing to challenge the case. In doing so, the favored tactic of the Obama administration of getting these cases dismissed is blunted. It will also challenge the assumption by the Obama administration that they can continue changing and rewriting the rules to mold to what they want at any given time.
This case may not be able to stop Obamcare, but it should, at the very least, place some restrictions on how it is being implemented by an administration that seems to think they can do whatever they please. If you care about the direction our country is headed, and about the way the Obama administration is conducting its implementation of Obamacare, you should watch this case closely. I am hoping it will place a muzzle on the jaws of the IRS and help chain them in a corner.
