Summary by The Market Institute of Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum #117
The Heritage Foundation recently issued Legal Memorandum #117 detailing the potential legal repercussions of rulings issued in regards to Obamacare. The hurried nature of the legislation back in 2010 allowed regulations and rules to be placed into law that otherwise might have been cut out. Specifically, one section mandates that Members of Congress and their staff should lose their current government-sponsored premium support for health insurance. The Office of Personnel Management has issued a final rule allowing Members of Congress and their staff to continue to have their taxpayer-funded health insurance. That action could have litigious consequences.
As then Speaker of the House put it in 2010, “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” the law is extremely long, even by Congressional standards, and many provisions were not considered before the law was enacted. The ramifications of the law are just not being discovered. In regards to the OPM final rule allowing members of Congress and their staff to continue to keep their health insurance, only a member of Congress could object to having it deviate from the law.
In January 2014, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) officially submitted a challenge to the ruling. Besides a legal challenge, Congress can request the Government Accountability Office to investigate the ruling. The recent OPM final rule to provide subsidies to Members of Congress and their staff contradicts the plain language of both the FEHB Program statute and Obamacare. Should this final rule be found to be non compliant, it will put Congress in an awkward position: Repeal a portion of Obamacare and create a legislative free for all, or stand by while members of Congress and their staff deal with paying out-of-pocket to go onto the Obamacare exchanges.
Read full memorandum:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/warning-side-effects-of-special-congressional-health-handout-may-include-lawsuits
