Payments To Insurers Under Affordable Care Act Are Illegal

[untermensche]

It is not a surprise. The ACA was a proposal originally from the libertarian Heritage Foundation with few changes. It goes without saying that it would be an untenable proposal, libertarians are delusional and don't concern themselves with the real world, only with a fantasy world of self-regulating free markets, invisible hands and benign, even beneficial anarchism.

Yes, who can forget Obama and the Democrats selling it exactly this way before passing it on party line votes, and the peanut gallery here cheering them on because they wanted to see more libertarianism in our healthcare system.

Or, perhaps this is clumsy revisionism.

It's a tough call.

If only there were some way to go back and see what people were actually saying at the time it passed.

Hey, only millions of people have health insurance who did not.

It has only alleviated the misery of some in an insane system of for profit health insurance. A system where parasites live off the inevitable maladies that inflict all.

And of course those with very selective hearing only hear what they want.

Even if this plan was condemned by many from the beginning for being a corporate give away mostly and not a real solution.

What some heard from this was praise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is the insurance companies aren't the ones in the wrong here and aren't going to lose out in the end.

You want to bring back the bad old days where the sick simply died.

No, they're not in the wrong for taking the money the government illegally gave them, but that doesn't mean it's OK for them to keep it.

Detrimental reliance--they'll keep it or get back the same number of dollars anyway. You're just after scuttling Obamacare.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, only millions of people have health insurance who did not.

It has only alleviated the misery of some in an insane system of for profit health insurance. A system where parasites live off the inevitable maladies that inflict all.

And of course those with very selective hearing only hear what they want.

Even if this plan was condemned by many from the beginning for being a corporate give away mostly and not a real solution.

What some heard from this was praise.

So what? Somebody got a dollar they didn't earn. That was supposed to go to a corporation! How many die to save that dollar is irrelevant!

 

[untermensche]

Hey, only millions of people have health insurance who did not.

It has only alleviated the misery of some in an insane system of for profit health insurance. A system where parasites live off the inevitable maladies that inflict all.

And of course those with very selective hearing only hear what they want.

Even if this plan was condemned by many from the beginning for being a corporate give away mostly and not a real solution.

What some heard from this was praise.

So what? Somebody got a dollar they didn't earn. That was supposed to go to a corporation! How many die to save that dollar is irrelevant!

The way a society is supposed to behave rationally, and democratically, is the people are supposed to be able to deal with their needs using the power of the government.

So a government program, like Medicare, is established. A watered down program due to all the corporate leaches.

If the US were a functioning democracy the people would get what they want, Medicare for all from birth.

But the US is a plutocracy so a parasitic system that is not needed in any way persists. The for-profit health insurance system.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ya, health care expenses should operate at a loss. It's not something one should make a profit on.

Yeah, this is why the government should have a monopoly on food too. Logic.

Dude, Big Sugar has been lying to you about saturated fats. You can't trust the food industry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what? Somebody got a dollar they didn't earn. That was supposed to go to a corporation! How many die to save that dollar is irrelevant!

The way a society is supposed to behave rationally, and democratically, is the people are supposed to be able to deal with their needs using the power of the government.

So a government program, like Medicare, is established. A watered down program due to all the corporate leaches.

If the US were a functioning democracy the people would get what they want, Medicare for all from birth.

But the US is a plutocracy so a parasitic system that is not needed in any way persists. The for-profit health insurance system.

Do you not realize that was sarcasm?

 

[dismal]

You're just after scuttling Obamacare.

Obamacare is a law. Doing things against the law is not a way to save a law.

 

[untermensche]

The way a society is supposed to behave rationally, and democratically, is the people are supposed to be able to deal with their needs using the power of the government.

So a government program, like Medicare, is established. A watered down program due to all the corporate leaches.

If the US were a functioning democracy the people would get what they want, Medicare for all from birth.

But the US is a plutocracy so a parasitic system that is not needed in any way persists. The for-profit health insurance system.

Do you not realize that was sarcasm?

I just added something rational to a whimsical nothingness.

The individual corporate insurance executive is not some miserly greedy insatiable pig.

They are working within an institution and behave "institutionally" not individually.

They fulfill the goals of the institution.

Which is taking as much money in and giving as little as possible out in return.

That is corporate health insurance.

 

[ksen]

You're utterly missing the point here.

The insurance companies took actions (selling policies) based on the government promise of those subsidies. If the government claws back the money they leave those insurance companies in a position to sue to recover the money they lost due to relying on the government.

If the government claws it back with one hand they'll just have to pay it (plus legal fees) out with the other.

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers. If you illegally receive money that did not belong to you, I don't think you don't just get to keep it.

If they have some other gripe against the government for reneging on some deal they can pursue that elsewhere.

eta: speaking of which:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/299036-feds-move-to-throw-out-obamacare-lawsuits

I thought you said Obama illegally received the money and had to pay it back?

 

[dismal]

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers. If you illegally receive money that did not belong to you, I don't think you don't just get to keep it.

If they have some other gripe against the government for reneging on some deal they can pursue that elsewhere.

eta: speaking of which:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/299036-feds-move-to-throw-out-obamacare-lawsuits

I thought you said Obama illegally received the money and had to pay it back?

No, The government (run by Obama) illegally paid the money. 3rd grade reading ability should have made this clear.

 

[KeepTalking]

I thought you said Obama illegally received the money and had to pay it back?

No, The government (run by Obama) illegally paid the money. 3rd grade reading ability should have made this clear.

Well, you did say this in reference to Obama, earlier in the thread:

Yes, and they can also demand he pays back the billions.

How Trumpian of you to claim that you said nothing of the sort, when all we have to do is scroll up.

 

[dismal]

No, The government (run by Obama) illegally paid the money. 3rd grade reading ability should have made this clear.

Well, you did say this in reference to Obama, earlier in the thread:

Yes, and they can also demand he pays back the billions.

How Trumpian of you to claim that you said nothing of the sort, when all we have to do is scroll up.

Yes, they can demand he pay them pack the billions he spent. It should have been clear he spent the billions (not received it) from, say, any of the following posts:

Illegally gave insurers $Billions.

The President illegally spends billions

Obama illegally spending money

Obama illegally spending money on them is accurate.

some of those companies were around even before Obama started illegally giving them billions.

the government illegally distributed money

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers.

the money the government illegally gave them

I added the bold to help those who aren't yet up to 3rd grade reading level.

 

[laughing dog]

From what I can tell from the GAO ruling (https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/114/analysis/20160929GAO.pdf), it seems the issue is the route in which the payments were made, not that payments were made. But if someone with an accounting or legal background would read the link and interpret it into plain english, I would appreciate it.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, you did say this in reference to Obama, earlier in the thread:

Yes, and they can also demand he pays back the billions.

How Trumpian of you to claim that you said nothing of the sort, when all we have to do is scroll up.

Yes, they can demand he pay them pack the billions he spent. It should have been clear he spent the billions (not received it) from, say, any of the following posts:

Illegally gave insurers $Billions.

The President illegally spends billions

Obama illegally spending money

Obama illegally spending money on them is accurate.

some of those companies were around even before Obama started illegally giving them billions.

the government illegally distributed money

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers.

the money the government illegally gave them

I added the bold to help those who aren't yet up to 3rd grade reading level.

So, Obama never received the money, but somehow personally paid out all the money he never received to the insurers, and now has to personally pay back the money he never received in the first place. Is this your final answer?

 

[dismal]

Well, you did say this in reference to Obama, earlier in the thread:

Yes, and they can also demand he pays back the billions.

How Trumpian of you to claim that you said nothing of the sort, when all we have to do is scroll up.

Yes, they can demand he pay them pack the billions he spent. It should have been clear he spent the billions (not received it) from, say, any of the following posts:

Illegally gave insurers $Billions.

The President illegally spends billions

Obama illegally spending money

Obama illegally spending money on them is accurate.

some of those companies were around even before Obama started illegally giving them billions.

the government illegally distributed money

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers.

the money the government illegally gave them

I added the bold to help those who aren't yet up to 3rd grade reading level.

So, Obama never received the money, but somehow personally paid out all the money he never received to the insurers, and now has to personally pay back the money he never received in the first place. Is this your final answer?

He was in charge of illegally paying out that money. They could punish him by requiring him to make some sort of restitution.

I'm sure Elizabeth Warren can do it. She beat up that Wells Fargo CEO and he paid some money back.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, you did say this in reference to Obama, earlier in the thread:

Yes, and they can also demand he pays back the billions.

How Trumpian of you to claim that you said nothing of the sort, when all we have to do is scroll up.

Yes, they can demand he pay them pack the billions he spent. It should have been clear he spent the billions (not received it) from, say, any of the following posts:

Illegally gave insurers $Billions.

The President illegally spends billions

Obama illegally spending money

Obama illegally spending money on them is accurate.

some of those companies were around even before Obama started illegally giving them billions.

the government illegally distributed money

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers.

the money the government illegally gave them

I added the bold to help those who aren't yet up to 3rd grade reading level.

So, Obama never received the money, but somehow personally paid out all the money he never received to the insurers, and now has to personally pay back the money he never received in the first place. Is this your final answer?

He was in charge of illegally paying out that money. They could punish him by requiring him to make some sort of restitution.

I'm sure Elizabeth Warren can do it. She beat up that Wells Fargo CEO and he paid some money back.

With Wells Fargo, the CEO was receiving money based on what his company was doing illegally. He profited directly, but you are claiming that Obama never saw a cent of this money, so why do you want him to pay it back? Your position seems very confused.

 

[dismal]

Well, you did say this in reference to Obama, earlier in the thread:

Yes, and they can also demand he pays back the billions.

How Trumpian of you to claim that you said nothing of the sort, when all we have to do is scroll up.

Yes, they can demand he pay them pack the billions he spent. It should have been clear he spent the billions (not received it) from, say, any of the following posts:

Illegally gave insurers $Billions.

The President illegally spends billions

Obama illegally spending money

Obama illegally spending money on them is accurate.

some of those companies were around even before Obama started illegally giving them billions.

the government illegally distributed money

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers.

the money the government illegally gave them

I added the bold to help those who aren't yet up to 3rd grade reading level.

So, Obama never received the money, but somehow personally paid out all the money he never received to the insurers, and now has to personally pay back the money he never received in the first place. Is this your final answer?

He was in charge of illegally paying out that money. They could punish him by requiring him to make some sort of restitution.

I'm sure Elizabeth Warren can do it. She beat up that Wells Fargo CEO and he paid some money back.

With Wells Fargo, the CEO was receiving money based on what his company was doing illegally. He profited directly, but you are claiming that Obama never saw a cent of this money, so why do you want him to pay it back? Your position seems very confused.

It's not uncommon to impose fines and penalties on lawbreakers. And illegally spending multiple billions of the taxpayers sacred money ought to result in a pretty hefty fine.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From what I can tell from the GAO ruling (https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/114/analysis/20160929GAO.pdf), it seems the issue is the route in which the payments were made, not that payments were made. But if someone with an accounting or legal background would read the link and interpret it into plain english, I would appreciate it.

Someone would need a reading level of well beyond 3rd grade to get that, but dismal isn't promoting that.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, you did say this in reference to Obama, earlier in the thread:

Yes, and they can also demand he pays back the billions.

How Trumpian of you to claim that you said nothing of the sort, when all we have to do is scroll up.

Yes, they can demand he pay them pack the billions he spent. It should have been clear he spent the billions (not received it) from, say, any of the following posts:

Illegally gave insurers $Billions.

The President illegally spends billions

Obama illegally spending money

Obama illegally spending money on them is accurate.

some of those companies were around even before Obama started illegally giving them billions.

the government illegally distributed money

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers.

the money the government illegally gave them

I added the bold to help those who aren't yet up to 3rd grade reading level.

So, Obama never received the money, but somehow personally paid out all the money he never received to the insurers, and now has to personally pay back the money he never received in the first place. Is this your final answer?

He was in charge of illegally paying out that money. They could punish him by requiring him to make some sort of restitution.

I'm sure Elizabeth Warren can do it. She beat up that Wells Fargo CEO and he paid some money back.

With Wells Fargo, the CEO was receiving money based on what his company was doing illegally. He profited directly, but you are claiming that Obama never saw a cent of this money, so why do you want him to pay it back? Your position seems very confused.

It's not uncommon to impose fines and penalties on lawbreakers. And illegally spending multiple billions of the taxpayers sacred money ought to result in a pretty hefty fine.

The law in question (the ACA) clearly provides for insurance companies to be paid the subsidies given by the exchanges, so what law was it that Obama is supposed to have broken?

 

[dismal]

The law in question (the ACA) clearly provides for insurance companies to be paid the subsidies given by the exchanges, so what law was it that Obama is supposed to have broken?

Maybe read the link.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...affordable-care-act-are-illegal/#1aaea1147dba

 

[KeepTalking]

The law in question (the ACA) clearly provides for insurance companies to be paid the subsidies given by the exchanges, so what law was it that Obama is supposed to have broken?

Maybe read the link.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...affordable-care-act-are-illegal/#1aaea1147dba

So, you don't actually know what law was broken. Thanks for clearing that up.