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

alp227

(32,064 posts)
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 03:15 PM Sep 2014

Federal judge rules in state's favor in ACA challenge

Source: Tulsa World

A federal judge ruled in Oklahoma's favor Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging part of the Affordable Care Act.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has said that parts of the law do not apply to Oklahoma and other states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

The Eastern District of Oklahoma ruling by U.S. District Judge Ronald White can be appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

"Today’s ruling is a consequential victory for the rule of law," Pruitt said in a statement. "The administration and its bureaucrats in the IRS handed out billions in illegal tax credits and subsidies and vastly expanded the reach of the health care law because they didn’t like the way Congress wrote the Affordable Care Act. That’s not how our system of government works."

Read more: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/health/federal-judge-rules-in-state-s-favor-in-aca-challenge/article_bfa615f2-6394-5e5e-a0fa-5edf07f28ee5.html



More coverage: The Oklahoman, Think Progress
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Federal judge rules in state's favor in ACA challenge (Original Post) alp227 Sep 2014 OP
Watching closely as I live in a Klan state. mmonk Sep 2014 #1
When working class people vote these people into office, how can you feel sorry for them? olegramps Sep 2014 #11
A little over half of the population of my state voted mmonk Sep 2014 #13
Exactly. The reddest red states have sizable numbers of progressive voters Ex Lurker Sep 2014 #14
They were allowed to gerrymander the district because they had a majority in the legislature. olegramps Sep 2014 #15
Yep, this is my home state. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #2
where did that '90% number' come from? quadrature Sep 2014 #16
I don't know. NaturalHigh Sep 2014 #18
Medicaid expansion is 100% paid for by federal govt for first 3 years, 90% thereafter til 2022 progree Oct 2014 #21
The GOP plans to kill off its own voters. JoePhilly Sep 2014 #3
No, they expect the poor to die, clearing the land. Their cronies will seize it and get richer. freshwest Oct 2014 #20
Does this mean that anyone on a Market Place Plan with a subsidy will have that Plan DhhD Sep 2014 #4
well that sucks! vlyons Sep 2014 #5
Goes to appeal now Ex Lurker Sep 2014 #6
is it possible to "fast track" it ? get this out of the way once and for all nt littlewolf Sep 2014 #7
The short answer is 'no'. ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #8
Frankly, that's a good thing Ex Lurker Sep 2014 #10
My thought, as well. ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #12
Pukes and Baggers sure love to hate the citizens. SoapBox Sep 2014 #9
Fighting to keep poor people from getting medical care. Almost too horrible to imagine cheapdate Sep 2014 #17
Typical red state bs davidpdx Oct 2014 #19

olegramps

(8,200 posts)
11. When working class people vote these people into office, how can you feel sorry for them?
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:52 PM
Sep 2014

So people in Red States don't give expanded coverage. Sorry, but its their own fault for electing fascists bastards. Just as I no sympathy for Republican workers who get laid off when they supported their own destruction.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
13. A little over half of the population of my state voted
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 05:14 PM
Sep 2014

against them but the gerrymandering made it impossible to dislodge them.

olegramps

(8,200 posts)
15. They were allowed to gerrymander the district because they had a majority in the legislature.
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:50 PM
Sep 2014

These people were elected to because most of the people don't even bother vote and their constituency, even if it is a minority, does. The Republicans have pursued a program that begins at the city and county levels of government including education boards to dominate these offices. They have been very effective in controlling large blocks of fundamentalist voters getting them registered and to the polls.

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
2. Yep, this is my home state.
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 03:36 PM
Sep 2014

Our governor was one of the few who refused the Medicaid expansion, even though the federal government would pay for 90% of its cost. She just doesn't care about poor people getting medical care. To be more succinct, she doesn't care about poor people.

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
16. where did that '90% number' come from?
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 07:05 PM
Sep 2014

Obama? Congress? who?

why, try to trick someone else,
just to save 10%?
seems kinda cheap and cowardly

progree

(10,921 posts)
21. Medicaid expansion is 100% paid for by federal govt for first 3 years, 90% thereafter til 2022
Wed Oct 1, 2014, 03:04 AM
Oct 2014
The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
20. No, they expect the poor to die, clearing the land. Their cronies will seize it and get richer.
Wed Oct 1, 2014, 01:18 AM
Oct 2014

They have declared all out war on the '47%' no matter who they are. Their laws discriminating run people of color off as well. The great migration from the South to the North in the last century left the land in the hands of the fathers of these guys. They have a long term plan that has nothing to do with democracy, justice or the USA, or even their states. Just the oligarchs, and they see anything that prolongs the life of the poor to be, like Ayn Rand said, evil. We really have to wake up and look at the 'devil' in our midst. They are not going anywhere.

Ex Lurker

(3,816 posts)
6. Goes to appeal now
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:10 PM
Sep 2014

that circuit has a majority of Democrat appointees, so I imagine this will be struck down. Several more challenges are working their way through the system. When all is said and done, ACA will probably end up before the Supreme Court again. Perhaps as soon as this term. Certainly by the 2016 term.

ColesCountyDem

(6,943 posts)
8. The short answer is 'no'.
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:43 PM
Sep 2014

This case meets none of the usual criteria the USSC considersfor expedited appeal.

Ex Lurker

(3,816 posts)
10. Frankly, that's a good thing
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:49 PM
Sep 2014

I have no confidence that SCOTUS will uphold the subsidies. Might as well drag out the process so people can have affordable healthcare as long as possible.

ColesCountyDem

(6,943 posts)
12. My thought, as well.
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:53 PM
Sep 2014

Until Scalia or Thomas, e.g., kick the bucket and a Democratic POTUS gets to appoint a replacement, I'm OK with this taking time.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
9. Pukes and Baggers sure love to hate the citizens.
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:43 PM
Sep 2014

But then the citizens support the PukeBaggers even though it is completely against their own self interests.

People ARE stupid.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
17. Fighting to keep poor people from getting medical care. Almost too horrible to imagine
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 08:13 PM
Sep 2014

what kind of person does that.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Federal judge rules in st...