Thursday, May 2, 2013

Sarah vs. ObamaCare

I've never been a "blog-every-story-every-day" blogger. It's easier to tweet the stories of the day (follow me @rumpfshaker if you aren't already) and occasionally write some longer commentary when I have time and schedule the post to go live the next day. 

I don't often get to break stories. 

But apparently I do today....or, at least, I get to break the story of my little role in a much bigger story.

You may have noticed a Wall Street Journal article today about a new lawsuit filed challenging Obamacare:
Obamacare Gets New Court Challenge 
Opponents of the health-care overhaul have filed a new lawsuit Thursday against the federal government on behalf of four individuals and three employers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The complaint focuses on the law’s distribution of federal subsidies for Americans to purchase insurance, and whether people can get them if they live in one of the 33 states that have refused to set up their own insurance exchanges and have left that task up to the federal government.
The health law was designed around the idea that states would run exchanges where people could compare insurance plans and apply for the subsidies. Some critics say that language in the legislation bars the Obama administration from allowing those subsidies to be distributed in exchanges run by the federal government.
The individual plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, from Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia – states that didn’t set up exchanges — say they should not be considered eligible for the subsidies and should not have to pay a fine if they don’t purchase insurance.
The “subsidies actually serve to financially injure and restrict the economic choices of certain individuals,” the new complaint says. “For these people, the Subsidy Expansion Rule, by making insurance less ‘unaffordable,’ subjects them to the individual mandate’s requirement to purchase costly, comprehensive health insurance that they otherwise would forgo.”
Read the rest here.
You can read the full complaint here.

Recognize any names?

Yes, I am Plaintiff #4 in this lawsuit. I'm sure I'll have more to say as this case progresses, but there's a really good description of the theory of the case posted here that I encourage you to read.

I don't know any of the other plaintiffs, but my situation is that I have been purchasing my own insurance for the past several years. I'm lucky and I don't have a complicated health history, so I have been buying simple, higher deductible policies so I make sure that I have health insurance coverage if I have a catastrophic accident or get cancer or some other chronic health problem, instead of a more comprehensive policy.

I do not want or need the level of coverage that Obamacare mandates. As with many ways the federal government interferes with our lives, Uncle Sam is not a better judge of what is best for me.

I'm very impressed with the attorneys at Jones Day and their approach to the case. They have done an excellent job cutting to the heart of the argument and explaining why these provisions should be overturned.

Should be interesting! I wrote a lot of this last night and it's been interesting to see how the story unfolded today. Several people who know me wrote about the lawsuit but didn't notice my name as a plaintiff. So here I am getting to break a little piece of a story. Anyway, follow me on twitter and keep reading here, and I'll be sure to keep you posted. 

[If you have any questions, I would prefer media inquiries to be submitted in writing to sarahrumpf at gmail dot com, and I'll get back to you after work hours. Thank you.]

See also:

Competitive Enterprise Institute | Small Business Owners Sue Over IRS Obamacare Power Grab 

Full copy of PPACA Complaint 

Wall Street Journal | Washington Wire | Obamacare Gets New Court Challenge

Follow me on Twitter at @rumpfshaker


  1. Doing the jobs ordinary Americans won't do.

  2. This could still be legal. Aren't pretty much all provisions in this massive thing subject to change "at the discretion of the Secretary" of HHS?
    This may well be one of the few exceptions, but if not then all she has to do is say "the same rules that apply to states now apply to the feds" and it's law regardless of what the law actually says.

    (Romney was not my first choice in presidents, but one of the main reasons I wanted him to win was for the simple reason that he could have appointed a secretary who would just say "screw this, I'm getting rid of every provision I can at my own whim" and then let the thing crash before it got really started.)

  3. Thank you for stepping up and best of luck. The Affordable Health Act is an abomination and must be destroyed. It is incredible to me that it stands, looming over our economy and our future health decisions and it was so ineptly put together with politics through and through.


Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
Permissions beyond the scope of this license are available here.