Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
Tue Feb 10, 2015, 07:16 PM Feb 2015

The Case Against Obamacare May Fail One Of The Most Basic Tests Of A Lawsuit

BY IAN MILLHISER POSTED ON FEBRUARY 10, 2015 AT 3:37

King v. Burwell, a Supreme Court case seeking to defund much of the Affordable Care Act and strip health insurance from as many as 13 million people, is a project of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative organization whose former chairman compared Obamacare to the Holocaust. CEI, does not hide this fact. To the contrary, its website announces that CEI is “coordinating and funding” the King litigation.

The Constitution, however, does not permit CEI to bring a lawsuit challenging Obamacare simply because they do not like the law. Rather, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts, CEI had to track down at least one plaintiff somewhere in the country who is actually injured in some way by the provisions of the Affordable Care Act CEI wishes to attack. Recent reporting by the Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones, however, indicate that CEI may have failed at this basic task when it assembled the four plaintiffs in King.

Article III of the Constitution requires plaintiffs challenging a federal law to show that they will actually be harmed in some way if the law remains in effect, a requirement known as “standing.” King challenges tax credits that help millions of individuals who purchased health insurance through health exchanges operated by the federal government afford their coverage. To establish standing, however, the lawyers behind this case offer a somewhat convoluted theory.

Although the Affordable Care Act requires most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay somewhat higher taxes, individuals are exempt from this requirement if the cost of the lowest-price coverage available to them exceeds 8 percent of their household income. The King plaintiffs claim that the cost of such a health plan is below 8 percent of their income if they are eligible for tax credits, but it is above 8 percent of their income if the tax credits are struck down. Thus, they claim, by rendering health care unaffordable for millions of Americans, they can also save themselves from complying with the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/10/3621385/lawyers-fighting-kill-obamacare-may-not-plaintiffs-actually-hurt-law/
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Case Against Obamacare May Fail One Of The Most Basic Tests Of A Lawsuit (Original Post) Cali_Democrat Feb 2015 OP
seems like 'standing' to me quadrature Feb 2015 #1
 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
1. seems like 'standing' to me
Tue Feb 10, 2015, 08:25 PM
Feb 2015

because of subsidies that are not allowed by law.
in certain states.

the price of minimum-insurance
will go down, thus forcing some people to
do what they don't want,
because the price gets pushed
below the point
where the 8%(of taxable income)-hardship-exemption
applies

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Case Against Obamacar...