"Why didn't anyone else think of it?" Morris wrote in The Hill. "Unlike the suit brought by 26 state attorney generals, this suit does not make a constitutional objection to the Affordable Care Act. Instead, it uses the language of the law to challenge the elaborate system of subsidies, tax credits, and individual or employer mandates and fines the act has spawned."
The suit, filed by Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General Scott Pruitt, was published in the Case Western Reserve School of Law Journal. The article contends that the wording of the Affordable Care Act only allows a subsidy for health insurance for those who got their coverage through state exchanges rather than the federal exchange.
Urgent: Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare? Vote Here.
"The IRS has ruled that the language of the statute should be 'interpreted' to extend the subsidies to those enrolled in state or federal exchanges, but that's not what the law says," Morris explained, adding, "Section 1041 of the act, according to their article, 'authorizes premium-assistance tax credits and makes them available only through state-run exchanges.'"
It also says tax credit can only be given if the taxpayer has a plan that was enrolled in through an exchange established by the state under section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act.
"Adler and Cannon argue that 'by its express terms, this provision only applies to exchanges 'established by a state' and 'established…under Section 1311,'" Morris pointed out.
Morris argued that the IRS and supporters of Obamacare try to "stretch the language to imply a mandate to cover those in federal exchanges."
Via: Newsmax
Continue Reading.....
