How ridiculous is the anti-ACA case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in March? It's really, really ridiculous."When it comes to the insanity surrounding the King v. Burwell case, we already have a pretty good sense of most of the relevant angles. We know who supports the ridiculous case and why, what happens if Republican justices go along with this dangerous nonsense, how many families will suffer and where, etc.
We don't, however, know much about the specific plaintiffs themselves.
Remember, when challenging a federal law, it's not enough for someone to get a lawyer, go to court, and demand the law be struck down. In the American system...litigants have to demonstrate that a law harms them in some direct way.
And so, in the painfully absurd King v. Burwell case, anti-healthcare lawyers went out and found four people willing to sue because they're eligible under the Affordable Care Act for insurance subsidies."
Yes, you read that correctly. Lawyers who don't like the healthcare law searched for, found and then convinced four people to sue the federal government in order to give themselves the opportunity to take a case to court. It's a whole new twist on ambulance-chaser lawyering. And these brilliant attorneys have convinced the four plaintiffs to sue because they are eligible for government subsidized healthcare.
The premise is, they don't believe the government should be subsidizing healthcare and they would be harmed by being fined for refusing to follow the law."Given the possibility that this case will end access to medical care for millions of families, it seems like a good time to ask, 'Who are these people who want to destroy the American health care system?'
(Correspondent for Mother Jones' Washington bureau) Stephanie Mencimer reports (that they're) quite a collection of folks. For example, David King of King v. Burwell notoriety, 'brought up Benghazi' when asked about the anti-healthcare lawsuit."
Thereby offering unassailable proof that Mr. King is, in fact, a card-carrying Republican."Rose Luck believes President Obama may be the 'anti-Christ' and was elected by 'his Muslim people.'
Belief in any conspiracy tossed out by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or your favorite televangelist...another sign of supreme Republican-ness."But Virginia woman Brenda Levy...said she didn't recall exactly how she had been selected as a plaintiff in the case to begin with. 'I don't know how I got on this case. I haven't done a single thing legally. I'm gonna have to ask then how they found me.' She thought lawyers involved with the case may have contacted her at some point and she had decided to 'help 'em out.'
When (Ms. Mencimer) asked her if she realized that her lawsuit could potentially wipe out health coverage for millions, she looked befuddled. 'I don't want things to be more difficult for people,' she said. 'I don't like the idea of throwing people off their health insurance.'...
...She added that she intends to go to D.C. for the Supreme Court's oral arguments. 'It's an adventure,' Levy said. 'Like going to Paris!'"
I'm assuming she means Paris, Texas."Complicating matters further, three of the four plaintiffs are finding their standing suddenly facing new scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal reported late Friday that King 'appears to qualify for veterans' medical coverage, raising questions about his ability to challenge the law.'
The plaintiffs have persuaded courts to hear their case on the grounds that the subsidies allegedly harm them by subjecting them to the law's requirement to carry insurance or pay a penalty...
...But Mr. King could avoid paying that fine or any insurance premiums because, according to him and his attorneys, he served in the Army in Vietnam. That qualifies him for medical coverage with no premiums through the Department of Veterans Affairs...
...Legal experts say the fact that Mr. King could avoid paying the penalty for lacking insurance by enrolling in VA coverage undermines his legal right to bring the case...The wife of a second plaintiff has described her husband on social media as (also) being a Vietnam veteran. The government previously questioned the standing of a third plaintiff on the grounds that her income may exempt her from paying the penalty...
...Levy, the one who doesn't want to throw people off their health insurance despite her role as a plaintiff in this case, will qualify for Medicare this June--which would remove her from the ACA coverage system anyway.
These fresh details reinforce the impression that the entire King v. Burwell case seems like a transparent scam, and as the WSJ added, the (plaintiff) issues 'could create skepticism about the strength of the challengers' case and highlight the difficulty in finding plaintiffs to show the health law's subsidies harm Americans.'"
Just another piece of GOP theater--a waste of time, ultimately paid for with American taxpayer money.
No comments:
Post a Comment