You're watching...
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt on the state’s lawsuit addressing how the health-care law is implemented.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- health -- do you remember this.
To elevate BL and now big federal case again the Supreme Court -- that the individual mandate was indeed constitutional.
Now Oklahoma saying that the government really doesn't have the authority to penalize employers that don't provide that coverage of just filing -- suit over this is attorney general thank you for coming.
What's -- -- of the -- what's the focus of the suit.
Well speaking of regulatory action -- the IRS on May eighteenth of this year adopted rules saying that the employer mandate penalty.
Would issue in states whether they had -- state health care exchange or a federal health care exchange.
The problem with that -- -- is -- -- clear violation.
The Affordable Care Act.
The state of Oklahoma has not taken action to adopt -- health care exchange.
And so -- -- being deprived of the benefit in our state of employers not having to play it pay the employer mandate tax or penalty.
As a result of -- is -- rule with the IRS I'm eighteen so they that the lawsuit is about that this is about implementation.
The original lawsuit as you know -- about constitution constitutionality of the law under the commerce clause -- their spending power.
This is addressing implementation of -- wall.
And the agencies of the federal government be it HHS -- IRS or other agencies involved and implementation must do so consistent.
With the ACA.
And we believe that the IRS is that exceeded their authority and were seeking to challenge that our challenge that in the action in Oklahoma.
-- -- it does give others as you move beyond you know legality that supposedly is Supreme Court.
Try to settle on whether you can.
Mandate someone.
Have to buy health care coverage and now we learn that six million Americans will have to.
-- heavily rather informally and we thought as recently as last week.
But this is separate because it cuts -- the core of how far.
The government can go do you have much interest or have you had.
Much -- just from other attorneys general.
We think about the states under the law had to have two primary responsibilities.
That they are are making decisions regarding one is the Medicaid expansion.
The other is the implementation of the state health care exchange.
The court has already said that the federal government -- is -- exceeded its authority by trying to intimidate the states to adopt the Medicaid expansion that was a 7272.
Vote.
Now the I arrested regulatory action is trying to force the states to adopt exchanges.
And and we believe that that is in violation the ACA and we are seeking to make sure that as of the law is implemented it's done so consistent with the provisions of the statute.
Regulation.
Can't lead to -- the statue you were employers in the state of Oklahoma have to pay this 3000 dollar per employee tax or penalty in the state of -- You have other.
Like minded attorneys general rules would visit -- we want to sign.
Sign on with this time.
Well I think it's very possible and -- they're I think at least when he states.
That had not adopted in exchange.
If those states that continue to choose not to adopt -- to adopt an exchange that's an economic benefit perhaps for the employers and their state.
If the IRS is allowed to continue.
By forcing their businesses to pay the tax or the penalty it's a problem so -- -- interest that's not a dollar we've had here to forbid if something they may be interest and in.
It is -- wrinkle to put it mildly attorney general Scott -- thank you sir.
-- -- --
