Good news: Court stops illegal payments to evil insurance companies

[dismal]

Today, a federal district court in Washington ruled in favor of the House of Representatives — and against the Obama administration — in House v. Burwell, concluding that funds to pay cost-sharing subsidies to health insurers under Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act had never been appropriated by Congress. In her opinion, Judge Rosemary Collyer concluded that, insofar as such subsidies have been paid, it was unlawful for the executive branch to do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-suit-but-will-decision-withstand-appeal/

Should there be jail time and/or garnishment of wages for the lawbreakers?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This stuff has been in and out of the courts so many times, I can't keep it straight. Wasn't this issue resolved already and specifically as to this issue, by SCOTUS?

As I read up, this isn't about tax credits for the insurance, but payments as part of ACA to insurance companies to help subsidize the cost of the insurance to the Insurance company. What is odd is that there is authorization to spend the money, but no money has been allowed to be spent.

So Congress says you are allowed to spend money for this, but we aren't giving you any money to do so.

Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.

It sounds like Congress is guilty of fucking up... and likely on purpose.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Court stops illegal payments to evil insurance companies

Actually payments will continue as the appeal goes through.

 

[dismal]

This stuff has been in and out of the courts so many times, I can't keep it straight. Wasn't this issue resolved already and specifically as to this issue, by SCOTUS?

Zoning in on words like "today" and "federal district court" may help answer your query.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This stuff has been in and out of the courts so many times, I can't keep it straight. Wasn't this issue resolved already and specifically as to this issue, by SCOTUS?

Zoning in on words like "today" and "federal district court" may help answer your query.

dismal, you are such a pleasure to discuss with.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Zoning in on words like "today" and "federal district court" may help answer your query.

dismal, you are such a pleasure to discuss with.

He's right. SCOTUS is not a Federal Court today.

 

[Trausti]

This stuff has been in and out of the courts so many times, I can't keep it straight. Wasn't this issue resolved already and specifically as to this issue, by SCOTUS?

As I read up, this isn't about tax credits for the insurance, but payments as part of ACA to insurance companies to help subsidize the cost of the insurance to the Insurance company. What is odd is that there is authorization to spend the money, but no money has been allowed to be spent.

So Congress says you are allowed to spend money for this, but we aren't giving you any money to do so.

Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.

It sounds like Congress is guilty of fucking up... and likely on purpose.

No fuck up. Simple separation of powers. Congress has always had the power of the purse. Surely every president has bemoaned having to deal with Congress. Better this than a president who can spend without the check of congressional authorization.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This stuff has been in and out of the courts so many times, I can't keep it straight. Wasn't this issue resolved already and specifically as to this issue, by SCOTUS?

As I read up, this isn't about tax credits for the insurance, but payments as part of ACA to insurance companies to help subsidize the cost of the insurance to the Insurance company. What is odd is that there is authorization to spend the money, but no money has been allowed to be spent.

So Congress says you are allowed to spend money for this, but we aren't giving you any money to do so.

It sounds like Congress is guilty of fucking up... and likely on purpose.

No fuck up. Simple separation of powers. Congress has always had the power of the purse. Surely every president has bemoaned having to deal with Congress. Better this than a president who can spend without the check of congressional authorization.

But Congress authorized the spending (if not authorized money to pay for it), not the President. If the Republicans want to repeal legislation that Congress has already put into law, there is a method to go about doing so.

 

[Trausti]

No fuck up. Simple separation of powers. Congress has always had the power of the purse. Surely every president has bemoaned having to deal with Congress. Better this than a president who can spend without the check of congressional authorization.

But Congress authorized the spending (if not authorized money to pay for it), not the President. If the Republicans want to repeal legislation that Congress has already put into law, there is a method to go about doing so.

Nah. Congress authorizes spending every year. This part was not included. From the article linked by dissy:

Part of the strength of the House’s argument on this question comes from the fact that, up until Congress decided not to appropriate the funds for these payments, the executive branch acted as though annual appropriations were necessary. As Collyer details in her opinion, the administration expressly included the 1402 funds in its annual appropriations request and acknowledged that Section 1402 funds were subject to the sequester (whereas permanent appropriations are not). There is also no question that Congress expressly and explicitly refused to include funds for the 1402 cost-sharing subsidies in the relevant appropriations bills that the president signed. It was only after these bills were passed that the administration decided that the relevant funds could be obtained from the Section 1401 permanent appropriations. It also undermines the administration’s claims that this case is really just a little dispute over statutory interpretation, as there is no question that Congress a) accepted the administration’s prior position that appropriations were necessary and b) refused to appropriate the desired funds.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But Congress authorized the spending (if not authorized money to pay for it), not the President. If the Republicans want to repeal legislation that Congress has already put into law, there is a method to go about doing so.

Nah. Congress authorizes spending every year. This part was not included. From the article linked by dissy:

Part of the strength of the House’s argument on this question comes from the fact that, up until Congress decided not to appropriate the funds for these payments, the executive branch acted as though annual appropriations were necessary. As Collyer details in her opinion, the administration expressly included the 1402 funds in its annual appropriations request and acknowledged that Section 1402 funds were subject to the sequester (whereas permanent appropriations are not). There is also no question that Congress expressly and explicitly refused to include funds for the 1402 cost-sharing subsidies in the relevant appropriations bills that the president signed. It was only after these bills were passed that the administration decided that the relevant funds could be obtained from the Section 1401 permanent appropriations. It also undermines the administration’s claims that this case is really just a little dispute over statutory interpretation, as there is no question that Congress a) accepted the administration’s prior position that appropriations were necessary and b) refused to appropriate the desired funds.

Yes, but the legislation passed by Congress authorized the mechanism to exist. Congress is refusing to fund something they said should exist.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, but the legislation passed by Congress authorized the mechanism to exist. Congress is refusing to fund something they said should exist.

Two words: Go vote!

 

[dismal]

But Congress authorized the spending

Cite?

 

[dismal]

Yes, but the legislation passed by Congress authorized the mechanism to exist. Congress is refusing to fund something they said should exist.

Laws either make appropriations or they don't.

This law made appropriations for some things, but not this thing.

The Obama Administration, apparently in its great zeal to shower illegal funds on evil health insurance companies, has been pretending an appropriation was made for this thing when it wasn't.

From the OP link:

Such an appropriation cannot be inferred, no matter how programmatically aligned the Secretaries may view Sections 1401 and 1402. See 31 U.S.C. § 1301(d) (“A law may be construed to make an appropriation out of the Treasury . . . only if the law specifically states that an appropriation is made”). “This principle is even more important in the case of a permanent appropriation.” Remission to Guam & Virgin Islands of Estimates of Moneys to be Collected, B-114808, 1979 WL 12213, at *3 (Comp. Gen. Aug. 7, 1979).

 

[dismal]

Yes, but the legislation passed by Congress authorized the mechanism to exist. Congress is refusing to fund something they said should exist.

Two words: Go vote!

Yes, "progressives" must to flock to the polls to ensure big health insurance companies get free money!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Two words: Go vote!

Yes, "progressives" must to flock to the polls to ensure big health insurance companies get free money!

Her ruling. There is this thing called the Internet and you get "information" from it by searching shit. I'm kidding, just wanted to be an asshole and see how good it felt. Honestly, not that much fun.

...without an appropriation [from Congress] violates the Constitution. Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the fiscal year 2014 budget or since. Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.

 

[dismal]

Yes, "progressives" must to flock to the polls to ensure big health insurance companies get free money!

Her ruling. There is this thing called the Internet and you get "information" from it by searching shit. I'm kidding, just wanted to be an asshole and see how good it felt. Honestly, not that much fun.

...without an appropriation [from Congress] violates the Constitution. Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the fiscal year 2014 budget or since. Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.

So, your rebuttal is a quote saying no public money can be spent without an appropriation and there wasn't one?

Um, ok, you win. I agree.

 

[SimpleDon]

So Congress is allowing the taxes to be collected for the subsidies but aren't allowing the subsidies to be sent to the insurance companies?

Fiscal responsibility!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Her ruling. There is this thing called the Internet and you get "information" from it by searching shit. I'm kidding, just wanted to be an asshole and see how good it felt. Honestly, not that much fun.

...without an appropriation [from Congress] violates the Constitution. Congress authorized reduced cost-sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the fiscal year 2014 budget or since. Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.

So, your rebuttal is a quote saying no public money can be spent without an appropriation and there wasn't one?

Um, ok, you win. I agree.

Wow, you just love being an ass. I didn't state otherwise in this thread.