House GOP Gets Big Win in Obamacare Funding Suit
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By horselips

Thread: House GOP Gets Big Win in Obamacare Funding Suit

  1. #1
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sacramento area, CA
    Posts
    53,499

    Default House GOP Gets Big Win in Obamacare Funding Suit

    RICK MORAN
    MAY 12, 2016


    U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled today that the Obama administration has been improperly funding an Obamacare subsidy program, violating the Constitution's separation of powers clause.

    At issue was a subsidy program that helps poor people pay out-of-pocket medical expenses. The subsidy program that helps all eligible Americans pay their insurance premiums was not affected.

    The case now moves to the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., where it faces an uncertain fate. The appellate courts have almost always backed the legality of Obamacare.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    The ruling, if it stands, could be a significant financial setback for the millions of low-income Americans who benefit from the cost-sharing subsidies, which help people pay for out-of-pocket costs like co-pays at the doctor’s office. But it would not be a fatal blow to the future of the president’s signature domestic policy achievement, but it could push insurance costs higher.Republicans have praised the challenge as a needed check on the White House's authority.

    "This decision is a critical step in protecting Congress's power of the purse from an Administration that has repeatedly ignored a fundamental principle of our Republic: the separation of powers," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady.

    The Obama administration is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

    "This is not the first time that we’ve seen opponents of the Affordable Care Act go through the motions to try to win this political fight in the court system," said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

    The health care law was designed to reimburse insurers for providing the cost-sharing subsidies to low-income customers who purchased exchange coverage. A second Obamacare subsidy program helping customers pay monthly premiums wasn't target in the House lawsuit.

    The House argues that the cost-sharing program was authorized but never appropriated. The House says that there is proof that the White House knew the cost-sharing subsidies weren’t funded and worked around the legislation to implement them.

    The White House asked Congress to fund the program in its fiscal year 2014 budget request, which was denied. It then unilaterally funded the program through the refundable tax credit account anyway, the House lawyers argued in court.

    When he filed the House v. Burwell lawsuit two years ago, former House Speaker John Boehner framed it as a check on the executive branch’s ability to change legislation once it was approved by Congress.

    But the Justice Department says the subsidies were funded appropriately. Its lawyers told the court that the program was funded in the same pot of money as the law’s refundable tax credits to help people pay for premiums.

    What makes these subsidies so important is that, without them, insurance companies would be forced to raise their premiums by a substantial margin -- up to 30% for some plans. Needless to say, such an increase would send Obamacare into a death spiral.

    An unusual aspect of this suit is that the administration challenged the standing of the House to sue the executive branch. Ordinarily, this is a slam dunk, with almost all cases being thrown out because the courts hate to intervene in what they see as a political spat between the branches.

    But Collyer allowed the case to go forward, probably because of the clear-cut Constitutional issue involved.




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  2. #2
    Wyoming NGF Addict! Dog Soldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    on the Bear River
    Posts
    4,252

    Default

    I am even more confused? Just last month the RINOs voted to fund Obamacare? Do we need to study why American voters are so upset with Washington D.C.?

  3. #3
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    6,403

    Default

    The GOP representatives in the House are all lions for the Constitution when they go to court, but on the floor of the House, where they have real power to actually govern by controlling every freaking cent the government and Obama spends, they are sheep. All because if the government shuts down, the drive-by media will blame them and not the president who actually signs or doesn't sign the appropriations as passed by Congress. If the government shuts down it's really entirely Obama's fault, but the press is in the tank for the Democrats, and even though The Donald has taught them all how to stand up to the media and win, they remain cowards to the end.

    I don't want final decisions made by courts and judges, I want to be governed by the people I elect to do their goddam jobs. If the press is their big boogyman, then they need to learn how to deal with the press. The Congress has done a good job, so far, preserving our gun rights, but even then only so far as the courts have restored them. They have failed to enact nationwide Constitutional Carry, or even reciprocity. And you can forget protecting our freedoms from being chipped away by the blue states with a national preemption law. Congress has also failed miserably to control federal fiscal mismanagement, to preserve the size and readiness of the military, to hold corrupt cabinet and department officials accountable for the endless parade of scandals, and a jillion other important issues.







    T R U M P
    Because I've had it up to here, and I don't want to hear their side of it.
    Dog Soldier, Stevejet and Popeye like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Wyoming NGF Addict! Dog Soldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    on the Bear River
    Posts
    4,252

    Default

    Horselips very insightful post. I also am disappointed by those Elitist we elect to Congress. At Election time they tell us how they are protecting our 2nd Amendment concerns. That said, not one of them is pushing to dismantle the NFA that has been around for over 80 years. This is a Federal overreach. Which one has forced Obama to release the Lend Lease M-1 Carbines that belong to the American public? Once in office they give us nothing.

  6. #5
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    17,989

    Default

    "I don't want final decisions made by courts and judges, I want to be governed by the people I elect to do their goddam jobs. If the press is their big boogyman, then they need to learn how to deal with the press."

    They are cowards and want protection and cover from public (constituents) opinions on their lack of effective representation. Besides, the "job & work" is just too harrrrrrd.......

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)