The Legal Challenge To Obamacare Nobody’s Talking About But Should


Republican House Speaker John Boehner may have conceded, momentarily at least, that as a result of the 2012 presidential elections, Obamacare is “law of the land,” but there’s no reason to believe this is actually the Republican position. In fact, we have at least one lawsuit in the pipeline that proves it’s not.

Last month the state of Oklahoma filed the first, in what we can expect to be a series of legal challenges over a key component in the implementation of health care reform. At issue in the lawsuit is whether or not the federal exchanges created in the health care reform can constitutionally give people subsidies to help pay for coverage. According to the legal challenge, the statutory language of the Affordable Care Act authorizes subsidies and credits for insurance only in state-run exchanges and any attempts by the federal government to administer its own subsidies are unconstitutional.

Oklahoma, like a host of states governed by conservatives with a pathological opposition to Obamacare, has refused to implement its own exchange. Should those states refuse to set up exchanges by January 2014 the law calls for the federal Department of Health and Human Services to establish a state-based exchange for them. As part of the creation of those federal exchanges the IRS implemented a rule that  in essence, authorizes the IRS to distribute tax credits and subsidies through those federally-operated health insurance exchanges in those states that refuse to establish their own exchanges.

But Oklahoma argues that the Obama administration can’t do that. Instead, they argue, if the federal government comes in and sets up an exchange because a recalcitrant state refuses to participate, those exchanges can’t offer subsidies for insurance coverage. Should the court agree this would functionally leave no means of affordable coverage in most of the red states that need it most.

Add this lawsuit to the approximately 34 other lawsuits challenging the contraception mandate and the conservative strategy becomes clear. As is the case with abortion rights, having lost on the ultimate issue of whether or not the law is constitutional, conservatives have opted for widespread and multi-faceted challenges designed to chip away at the core protections until they are rendered effectively meaningless.

What that means as we move back from campaigning to governing is that Speaker Boehner and other conservatives can pledge whatever they’d like concerning health care reform. The minute they stop filing lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of its key components we’ll know they’ve actually accepted health care reform is here to stay. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jessica Mason Pieklo on twitter: @hegemommy

  • tk69

    conservatives have opted for widespread and multi-faceted challenges designed to chip away at the core protections until they are rendered effectively meaningless.” – no, it is public health care it’s self that will render it useless.


    Such things cannot be paid for nor could even exist, even in places like Canada, without inflating the money supply with new money created out of thin air.  


    But unlike the past, too many people have too much debt to inflate it; hence financial crises and the the end of many nations.  THis is the beginning of the end of isms, like socialism.  These things cannot exist, nor will it after the Great correction.


    Also, Public health care is cruel and is the cause of health care care disparity because it raises cost so much that not even governments can afford it; hence leading to rationing everytime its tried.  

  • uneasyone

    either in fact or economic theory.

  • uneasyone

    Largely because of the precedent it set.  We can now be forced to patronize the most rapacious corporations at the will of congress.  Given the anti-consumer/pro corporate bent of this Supreme court, I was completely unsurprised that the individual mandate was upheld.  (add a real public option like Medicare For All, and it is undeniably constitutional.)

     

    This Supreme Court will rule as it wishes, using the Constitution the way a “Hellfire and Damnation” preacher does to justify what it does.  Once you understand that, the SC post Bush v Gore is a lot easier to predict and understand.

  • arachne646

    I was very disappointed to see that no single-payer option made it through, though I think some states like Vermont have instituted something like this, and this is how we got universal health care in Canada: one province at a time at first. How states like Oklahoma and Florida can be so stubborn as to refuse to help their poorest citizens to afford healthcare, and refuse federal funds to do it as well, is very upsetting. It seems to be an almost entirely political point they are making. As ever, I am praying for the health care of all Americans, men, women, and children.

  • arachne646

    I was very disappointed to see that no single-payer option made it through, though I think some states like Vermont have instituted something like this, and this is how we got universal health care in Canada: one province at a time at first. How states like Oklahoma and Florida can be so stubborn as to refuse to help their poorest citizens to afford healthcare, and refuse federal funds to do it as well, is very upsetting. It seems to be an almost entirely political point they are making. As ever, I am praying for the health care of all Americans, men, women, and children.