It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
A U.S. District Court has ruled against the Obama Administration in favor of The House of Representatives.

The House filed a lawsuit last year about some ways the Administration was paying for Obama.Care provisions.

Apparently some of those payment methods are not legal.

This could become a Supreme Court case after the Appeals are exhausted.

Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally


House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.


Oh Oh





posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Let me guess, it's a conservative right-leaning judge.


Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush


Yep.

Let me also guess, this will probably go nowhere.


The judge's ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.


Yep.


+2 more 
posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
good. terrible legislation. it was unconstitutional from the start. the "taxes" are fees.

I have never been taxed for something I don't own, the entire thing is absurd


+6 more 
posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Well "Right" or "Left" leaning ...

What parts of the law did this judge ignore or twist (or amplify) in order to arrive at the decision?

Something must obvious.

What will the appeal be based on in your educated opinion?



edit on May-12-2016 by xuenchen because: klickideas



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

I'm no fan of Obamacare, but nothing will come of this. It's just political pandering.


+2 more 
posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: syrinx high priest

I'm no fan of Obamacare, but nothing will come of this. It's just political pandering.


What parts of this court decision are "pandering" ?



+12 more 
posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I'll tell you the same thing I pointed out on MSN.

Congress has the power of the purse. They did not allocate funds for this part of Obamacare, and Obama ordered for them to be appropriated from other parts of the budget effectively taking funds earmarked for something else. That's what the challenge is over.

This should concern you very much, and you should be glad this ruling was made the way it was.

Funding is one of the main checks and balances built into our system. It is a check the legislative branch has on the executive branch and a major one. Now, you disapprove of this because you like Obamacare and approve of the use to which these funds will be put to in spite of the fact they were appropriated illegally.

Now, imagine this: Trump becomes president and wants to build that wall. Imagine he further does get the wall passed into law. Now, once this happens, a mid term election manages to put just enough power into pro-illegal factions that they take back the House. One of the ways they would have to block Trump would be to refuse to allocate funds to the wall, and they would have every right to. It is one of the checks they have.

If this precedent is set however, Trump could simply appropriate funds away from something ... say Obamacare ... and spend it on his wall instead, and because you and judges sympathetic to your reasoning champion and set this precedent ... there would be nothing to stop him. The legal precedent would be set because all you can see now is what YOU want not the long-term implications of breaking down this check in the system.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Part of me is hoping that when the supreme court decides weather or not to hear this case, the are so sick of these obamacare cases, along with the politicians that just can't their crap together to have hearings for that empty seat, they just refuse to hear it and let the danged law implode.
but it would be ironic, in that it would be like saying oh ya, the gov't can mandate you have this overpriced, unaffordable insurance but they can't provide any financial assistance so you can afford it.
that would probably be the worse message they could send to the american people.


+5 more 
posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Its entirely unconstitutional. Where does the US government have the right to require that we buy things from private corporations? They get around this with auto insurance on the basis that driving is a licensed privelege (a debate for another time). Is living a licensed privilege the state bestows upon us? Obamacare seems entithetical to the entirety of constitional thought and law imo.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

I Couldn't agree more!! I have health insurance through my work so I've never been directly effected by ObomaCare but if lost my insurance I would NOT be able to afford health insurance and then because of ObamaCare I would be forced to pay a penalty fee to the Federal government because I can't afford insurance. ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I do NOT like Obamacare. I want a national healthcare system. I want health insurance companies to go the way of the dodo bird. I want no more healthcare tied to employment. If Bernie gets elected, I'll get what I want. If Hillary gets elected, we'll continue with Obamacare. If Trump gets elected, we'll probably get nuked in WWIII, so it won't matter.

I just don't think this judge's ruling is going to go anywhere - it's just getting the conservatives riled up for nothing.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

When I had a $20.00 co-pay I was on 7 RX meds. From Ambien™ to Zoloft™ for ailments from PTSD to hypertension. I changed My snip around and found 'Ayurveda' I weighed in at 272 and was a health wreck. I had an epiphany and now am on just the 2 pain meds for a broken back/neck. 2 pain meds that haven't increased in the 12 + years I've been on them, except for the Winter months and then revert back. Part of My Epiphany included a healthier 'vessel'

My cholesterol went from 373 to 153. Hypertension went from 145/90 on 2 meds. to 120/68 w/0. When I whittled even the PTSD meds and got down to 2 Rx meds. "THEY" started deducting $1207/month for "Affordable Healthcare" out of My police medical retirement. I HAD to retire w/the broken back and neck and "Health Insurance" was part of the retirement settlement.

The way I looked at it was "The Trough" opened in 2008 w/the Auto companies getting first whack. Then it was "Banks" and now it is "Insurances" turn at The Trough. Just think of a big conglomerate that You can buy-in now.. Oil and Military have the front teats but there is more openings...

It is anything but "Affordable" unless that means screw whomever to take care of someone else?

Call it "anything" just give Me My retirement $$$ back..



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Let me guess, it's a conservative right-leaning judge.


Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush


Yep.

Let me also guess, this will probably go nowhere.


The judge's ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.


Yep.


Some sympathy there.
What exactly is Congress's role? is Congress a spending power?
The constitutional provision states that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

It doesn't seem like they have the capability to spend, but only to pay.

edit on 12-5-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Then you want Obamacare to continue on. It was designed to force the insurance companies into an unsustainable business model while simultaneously making costs unaffordable for as many as possible.

In the end, people will beg the government to fix the very problem they created and that's when the progressives imagine we will be ripe for single payer.

Gruber's testimony supports this.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think you got your tin foil hat on a little too tight.

Obama is too much of a narcissist to want his healthcare plan to fail. After all, it's got his name on it.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
This news story must be an RFC of sorts.
The issue is that a lot of low income people have their medical premiums subsidized out of the Federal "1402 funding".
Theoretically the larger the pool of beneficiaries the lower the average premiums.

Some people go decades without filing a claim, and if they are low income its not really fair to mandate that they pay high insurance premiums to cover the high risk group claims.

This will be a real challenge to come up with a fair program.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Lol at the bs WW3



Cant aay more now
edit on 12-5-2016 by Tiamat384 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
only congress has the authority to "spend" tax payers money.if congress did not appropriate money to fund obamacare then obviously someone is illegally misappropriating tax payer money.There should be a criminal investigation into who is doing it.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Huh. So Congress refuses to fund obamacare and are irate that he funded it through other channels. I get that congress is an important part of the checks-and-balances process of our government, but they'd seem more credible if they hadn't spent the past few years trying to block everything they can. Its not like this was something that was unilaterally decided by Obama, this was voted on by the senate and approved by a majority vote.

I'd take this more seriously if congress hadn't been so blatantly contrarian recently. I'm guessing this'll go nowhere, simply because their refusal to fund the affordable care act could be argued as illegal itself.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
All the opinions and projected outcomes are nice... but the bottom line is that government can not hold a person criminally accountable for failing to buy an over priced ineffective product they were ordered to buy whether they wanted to or not. Whether it is because of the lack of will or the lack of funds, you can not hold a person criminally accountable for failing to purchase an insurance policy.

If they wanted everyone to have access to healthcare all they needed to do was create an address for people to mail their bills to and then pay them. Not only would that guarantee that EVERYONE had access to healthcare, it would be a very good kick in the pants to get government started on getting healthcare and pharma costs under control.

This didn't have to be such a big deal, but obama wanted a legacy. He got one - a bankrupt nation.




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join