New Questions Swirl on an Affordable Care Act Challenger

[srican69]

Source: Wall Street Journal

One of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case against the Affordable Care Act listed a short-term-stay motel as her address when she joined the lawsuit, potentially calling into question her basis for suing.

Rose Luck is among four plaintiffs suing the Obama administration to eliminate tax credits under the law that make health insurance cheaper for millions of Americans. They say the wording of the 2010 law allows consumers to tap the credits only in states that run their own insurance exchanges, and not their home state of Virginia, which is one of as many as 37 states that use the federal enrollment system.

The plaintiffs say that, by making their insurance more affordable, the tax credits subject them to the law’s requirement that they carry insurance or pay a fee, which they oppose.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/article_email/new-questions-swirl-on-an-affordable-care-act-challenger-1423527427-lMyQjAxMTE1NzAzOTYwNzkwWj

---

Don't think this will have much impact on the case at all -- if there was issue of standing on such a trivial point - this would have been resolved in the lower court. Plus there are three other plaintiffs who still might have standing.

Although I am curious as to what their 'Injury' for the standing is ?

[bigdarryl]

1. Could the Supreme Court decide not to take this case with these new revelations?

I've personally never heard of the court saying they would hear a case then renege on it and say later they wouldn't.I mean this is a big cluster fuck.

[PoliticAverse]

7. They'd take it and find the plaintif didn't have standing. n/t

[Jerry442]

9. SCOTUS won't change their minds because of a problem with a plaintiff on this case.

All the plaintiffs are problematic. It's uncivil, but absolutely true to call them a bunch of clowns and losers.

More at:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare

In fact, this case is such a bag of rags that I wonder if SCOTUS is hearing it just so that when they announce the verdict, no one can have any remaining doubt that jurisprudence is dead and a dictatorship has arrived.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. no one can have any remaining doubt that jurisprudence is dead and a dictatorship has arrived

+1000

[Dustlawyer]

14. +1!!! SCOTUS has 5 activist, partisan hacks, nothing is safe!

[bigdarryl]

2. srican69 maybe the lower court didn't know about this and the full court

Never got to hear the damn case because there are dick heads on the Supreme Court who are itching at gutting this law

[BlueJazz]

3. "that they carry insurance or pay a fee, which they oppose." People either carry insurance or....

...they usually pay a fee alright...it's called death.

The key is having insurance for the populace so preventive medicine can come into play.
"Why did you wait so long to come see me...we could have cured this right up if you had."
"I'm sorry..I don't have any insurance and I'm trying to raise a child with only XXX dollars and..."

Sad situation.

[srican69]

5. That is not at the heart of this case .. every still has to have insurance regardless of the outcome

The issue is whether someone can get subsidy under the federal exchange or not.

How does getting subsidy on federal vs state exchange injure the plaintiff?

[BlueJazz]

10. If people choose to pay a fee than (I thought) that they don't have to buy insurance. ??

[srican69]

15. I found this to be the "Injury" from Mother Jones

In a complicated legal maneuver, the plaintiffs argue that if the IRS hadn't illegally made subsidies available to them, they would have the right to the hardship exemption provided by the law that would free them from paying a fine for going uninsured. (Exemptions are available to Americans whose health insurance costs would be more than 8 percent of their incomes.)

This is so bloody flimsy .. probably affects 0.01% of the population and revoking the law will affects millions. SCOTUS is either being facetious or disingenuous in taking up this case.

[srican69]

12. This case is trying to gut subsidies under the federal exchange .. stating that the intention of the

lawmakers was to limit subsidies to 'State' operated exchanges and not federal exchange.

Even if that line of reasoning was valid ( it is not) .. how does that Injure anyone - if anything a person gets a subsidy when 'Supposedly" he/she is not eligible.

How does that cause any injury to the plaintiff?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

8. Or bankrupty, homelessness, and then death.

[riversedge]

4. I think 'standing' is very important and...

so do these folks. We will see.

.....Other lawyers say they aren’t so sure. “Standing is dynamic and has to be present at all times and not just at the time of the lawsuit’s filing,” said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general during the Obama administration who worked on an amicus brief supporting the government in the case....

[riversedge]

6. Maddow had a segment on last evening about the

4 plaintiffs also. As the article above implies or says for some--they seem to be questionable to say the least. Read the rest of the article for details.

[srican69]

16. did but found the explanation I was looking for in a separate article ..

In a complicated legal maneuver, the plaintiffs argue that if the IRS hadn't illegally made subsidies available to them, they would have the right to the hardship exemption provided by the law that would free them from paying a fine for going uninsured. (Exemptions are available to Americans whose health insurance costs would be more than 8 percent of their incomes.)

[riversedge]

17. umm. now I understand the suit much more. Thank you

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

11. The only one with standing really doesn't have any either!

There also is a question about Ms. Levy’s income, which she projected in court papers to be $43,000 for 2014 as the basis for her expected premiums and tax credits and in turn why she claimed a legal grievance. Ms. Levy said in her declaration that she was employed as a substitute teacher, and she indicated no other sources of income.

A spokesman for Chesterfield County Public Schools, which Ms. Levy had listed as her employer in most of her recent campaign-donation filings, said her annual rate of pay was less than $10,000. A single person earning that amount wouldn’t have to pay the penalty if she went without coverage and would make too little to qualify for any tax credits.

Ms. Levy didn’t answer questions about her income on Saturday and didn’t respond to an email on Monday.