Two unrelated court rulings on Obamacare paved the way for the press to focus their attention to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), possibly fueling future criticisms on the much opposed Affordable Care Act (ACA).

A year ago, the HHS answered concerns from some U.S. territory leaders about the health care mandate in their locale, clarifying that the Public Health Services Act as amended by the ACA defines "states" with certain inclusion of territories.

Like Us on Facebook

Territory leaders have lobbied for exemption citing that that Obamacare mandates and insurer regulations may force premiums to hit the roof or insurance markets may collapse.

The HHS stood firm in its position and even reminded a territorial governor that they initially opted to be included in the ACA.

A ruling on Tuesday about a lawsuit filed against an Internal Revenue Services (IRS) regulation by Obamacare opponents considered a strict interpretation of the law which states that only state-run health care marketplaces are qualified for its hallmark tax credits, which would have included around 5.4 million Obamacare customers.

It was later contested on the same day, stating that the IRS regulation is legal and that the argument on the language of the law is prone to misinterpretation and may be due to a drafting error.

However, recent reports indicate that five U.S. territories including Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not considered "states" based on a "careful review" the HHS conducted after territories claimed that the initial interpretation of the word is "undermining the stability of the territories' health insurance markets."

It is therefore concluded in a letter from the HHS dated July 16 that said territories are given leeway with regards to the health care requirement. Meanwhile, the 50 United States continue to be ruled under the Affordable Care Act as before.

"We are providing additional flexibility to the territories in order to implement the law in a way that recognizes their unique situations," a spokesman from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told the Washington Post.

This inconsistency in the interpretation of the law received numerous reproaches from Americans.

"It's amazing what the right motivation will do," Ed Morrissey wrote in his blog in HotAir.com condemning how the HHS opposed its own statement about a simple definition of a word.

Elise Hilton cited the Wall Street Journal in her Acton Institute PowerBlog entitled Skirting the Law: Five U.S. Territories Now Exempt from Obamacare that there was "some elasticity" in the White House's definition of the word which has been applied as well with the democratic process.

TagsObamacare, Affordable Care Act, Department of Health and Human Services