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.

 

The President is not doing his job

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This isn't meant to be inflammatory, only a factual assessment of what has now occurred.

In the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there exists a requirement:

(3) Methods for reducing cost-sharing
(A) In general

An issuer of a qualified health plan making reductions under this subsection shall notify the Secretary of such reductions and the Secretary shall make periodic and timely payments to the issuer equal to the value of the reductions.
(B) Capitated payments

The Secretary may establish a capitated payment system to carry out the payment of cost-sharing reductions under this section. Any such system shall take into account the value of the reductions and make appropriate risk adjustments to such payments.

Therefore, by law, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services must make payments to insurers.

The argument put forth by the House of Representatives before U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer is that these payments were unconstitutional because these payments were not explicitly appropriated. Yet, these payments are required under the law. This is a Catch-22.

Under President Obama, a request (prior to this ruling) was made to Congress to appropriate funds, but this request was refused. The HHS under President Obama continued making payments as required by law, which resulted in the lawsuit above.

Judge Collyer stayed her injunction against the HHS making payments through the appeal, which is still lingering in the court system. This means the HHS is still required by law to make these payments.

Further, there is precedent in lawsuits related to the PPACA about this lack of appropriations. Part of the PPACA is a 'risk corridor' to encourage health insurers to participate on the exchanges, and it does so by collecting money from plans that have excess funds and redistributing the funds to plans losing money.

Congress kept attaching riders to appropriations bills preventing disbursement of these funds, and have been successfully sued repeatedly by insurers in the Court of Federal Claims to get these funds disbursed as written in the law.

The failure of the Legislative branch to appropriate money for a law that demands the Executive branch to disburse is the responsibility of Congress to rectify - either by removing the requirement that money shall be paid or by appropriating the money to support the law.

We are a country of laws, and the Executive branch is the instrument by which these laws are enforced. It doesn't get a say in which laws that Congress makes that it will follow. This is what makes the most recent Executive Order so troubling. From the press release:

Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare. In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments. In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments. The United States House of Representatives sued the previous administration in Federal court for making these payments without such an appropriation, and the court agreed that the payments were not lawful.


Indeed, there is no explicit appropriation - but there is the requirement that the payments be made. Further, the question of lawfulness is not up for the Executive branch to decide: that power is vested in the Judicial branch. Unsurprisingly, the ruling of Judge Collyer mentioned above is cited to support this position. However, that ruling is stayed during the appeal; there is no prohibition on payments during the ongoing appeal.

Consequently, the Executive branch is ignoring the law: the HHS must pay these cost-sharing reduction payments. Article II Section 3 of the Constitution states:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

This is not a request: it is the duty of the President to see that laws issued by Congress are executed. Considering the above, the President is willfully ignoring the law, arguing that law doesn't have to be executed because he has deemed it illegal.

If the court ruling had been in effect, it would be the Judicial branch deeming the disbursement of funds illegal, which is a perfectly fine interpretation.

Instead, the Executive branch (this includes the Department of Justice, for the record) arbitrarily decided that payments are illegal because there are no apportionment for the payments, and so refuses to follow the law issued by the Legislative branch to make said payments.

What's shocking is that people act like this is not such a big deal that the President is refusing to execute the laws of the United States of America. He is arbitrarily that deciding he doesn't have to execute the law, because he doesn't like the law and wants it to fail.

Worse is the fact that the Executive branch declared the execution of the law illegal.
He does not have that constitutional power, and for good reason: that's how dictators and kings are made.




posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I thought the Supremes ruled in favor of the ACA.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Worse is the fact that the Executive branch declared the execution of the law illegal.
He does not have that constitutional power, and for good reason: that's how dictators and kings are made.


Oh please. I keep hearing this from people who were perfectly fine with our 4th branch being nothing more than the propaganda arm of the white house for 8 long years.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015
It did, for some aspects.

The issue in question is about the legality of payments to insurers as required by law when there are not funds appropriated for said payments.

That issue was not tackled by the courts.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Are you one of those people who love health insurance companies? They will be just fine without the $10 Billion contribution from Tax Payers next year.

You Forgot this Legal Info from 2016: healthaffairs.org...

Also, I started a thread on this earlier, that used a far more appropriate title. You should have added to it. I'm not going through this whole back-n-forth discussion again.

LINK TO EXISTING ATS THREAD: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin

originally posted by: Greven

Worse is the fact that the Executive branch declared the execution of the law illegal.
He does not have that constitutional power, and for good reason: that's how dictators and kings are made.


Oh please. I keep hearing this from people who were perfectly fine with our 4th branch being nothing more than the propaganda arm of the white house for 8 long years.

The hell are you talking about?

There are three branches of government defined in the Constitution. The media has nothing at all to do with this, and the fact that you think it does is disturbing.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Greven

Are you one of those people who love health insurance companies? They will be just fine without the $10 Billion contribution from Tax Payers next year.

You Forgot this Legal Info from 2016: healthaffairs.org...

Also, I started a thread on this earlier, that used a far more appropriate title. You should have added to it. I'm not going through this whole back-n-forth discussion again.

LINK TO EXISTING ATS THREAD: www.abovetopsecret.com...


No, and I agree, but the law is the law.

I specifically mentioned Judge Collyer and her ruling. I also mentioned that said ruling is stayed through the appeal.

Clearly you did not actually read this post, because it's not about what your topic is about and you somehow didn't get that I mentioned just what you claim I forgot.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven


There are three branches of government defined in the Constitution. The media has nothing at all to do with this, and the fact that you think it does is disturbing.


en.wikipedia.org...

The Fourth Estate (or fourth power) is a segment of society that wields an indirect but significant influence on society even though it is not a formally recognized part of the political system.[1] The most commonly recognized part of the fourth estate is the news media, or press.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
You really shouldn't be surprised by these things, because our last corrupt administration did things with a specific rule that they be done unconstitutionally. Obama's signature on most everything he did was unconstitutional. The "affordable? care act" itself was unconstitutional.

Oh, now I understand your confusion, it's because Trump is making things constitutional again that you are in a turmoil? It's okay, it's perfectly acceptable to adhere to the constitution again. It's back in vogue!

Enjoy!


edit: Oh, and laws that Obama made that are unconstitutional are really NOT the law. They are automatically nullified by their specific nature of being unconstitutional to begin with. So in these cases, the law ISN'T the law.

edit on 14-10-2017 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin

originally posted by: Greven


There are three branches of government defined in the Constitution. The media has nothing at all to do with this, and the fact that you think it does is disturbing.


en.wikipedia.org...

The Fourth Estate (or fourth power) is a segment of society that wields an indirect but significant influence on society even though it is not a formally recognized part of the political system.[1] The most commonly recognized part of the fourth estate is the news media, or press.

Did you perhaps read the wikipedia entry that you cite which says "is not a formally recognized part of the political system?"

What does the media have to do with the fact that the President of the United States of America is deciding that the enforcement of a law is illegal and refusing to execute said law?

What about his other refusals to execute the law?



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
You really shouldn't be surprised by these things, because our last corrupt administration did things with a specific rule that they be done unconstitutionally. Obama's signature on most everything he did was unconstitutional. The "affordable? care act" itself was unconstitutional.

Oh, now I understand your confusion, it's because Trump is making things constitutional again that you are in a turmoil? It's okay, it's perfectly acceptable to adhere to the constitution again. It's back in vogue!

Enjoy!

Feel free to cite some specifics instead of specious claims.

Our last President did a whole lot of bad stuff, but what makes that justify the current President doing bad stuff?



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven


What's shocking is that people act like this is not such a big deal that the President is refusing to execute the laws of the United States of America. He is arbitrarily that deciding he doesn't have to execute the law, because he doesn't like the law and wants it to fail.

Worse is the fact that the Executive branch declared the execution of the law illegal.
He does not have that constitutional power, and for good reason: that's how dictators and kings are made.


You're nearly 20 years too late (actually much more). Have you researched just the last two administrations?

ROL? That stopped being a thing long ago.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
You really shouldn't be surprised by these things, because our last corrupt administration did things with a specific rule that they be done unconstitutionally. Obama's signature on most everything he did was unconstitutional. The "affordable? care act" itself was unconstitutional.

Oh, now I understand your confusion, it's because Trump is making things constitutional again that you are in a turmoil? It's okay, it's perfectly acceptable to adhere to the constitution again. It's back in vogue!

Enjoy!

Feel free to cite some specifics instead of specious claims.

Our last President did a whole lot of bad stuff, but what makes that justify the current President doing bad stuff?


That is what I was pointing out to you before, that realignment to the constitution is legal. The constitution grants authority to the people which includes the executive branch to not enforce any unconstitutional laws like the laws Obama attempted to employ through the democrats in congress and the senate who also cared nothing for the law of the land (the constitution.

After 8 years of this kind of anti-constitutional behavior by the president and Eric Holder, and all the corrupt scum bags Obama appointed like viruses within government, and a willing and complicit congress and senate including many corrupt republicans, you have come to expect that which is called "the law", even when they are illegal laws, still be considered the law. But they aren't in reality because of that troubling document the US constitution.

So when Trump adheres to the constitution it only feels wrong to you, and like a bad thing because of how you have become "used" to thinking of bad laws as good ones.

Things will keep getting better now so you can rest easy, Trump is on the case!



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
So we should just keep on ignoring the flagrant abuses?



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
You really shouldn't be surprised by these things, because our last corrupt administration did things with a specific rule that they be done unconstitutionally. Obama's signature on most everything he did was unconstitutional. The "affordable? care act" itself was unconstitutional.

Oh, now I understand your confusion, it's because Trump is making things constitutional again that you are in a turmoil? It's okay, it's perfectly acceptable to adhere to the constitution again. It's back in vogue!

Enjoy!

Feel free to cite some specifics instead of specious claims.

Our last President did a whole lot of bad stuff, but what makes that justify the current President doing bad stuff?


That is what I was pointing out to you before, that realignment to the constitution is legal. The constitution grants authority to the people which includes the executive branch to not enforce any unconstitutional laws like the laws Obama attempted to employ through the democrats in congress and the senate who also cared nothing for the law of the land (the constitution.

After 8 years of this kind of anti-constitutional behavior by the president and Eric Holder, and all the corrupt scum bags Obama appointed like viruses within government, and a willing and complicit congress and senate including many corrupt republicans, you have come to expect that which is called "the law", even when they are illegal laws, still be considered the law. But they aren't in reality because of that troubling document the US constitution.

So when Trump adheres to the constitution it only feels wrong to you, and like a bad thing because of how you have become "used" to thinking of bad laws as good ones.

Things will keep getting better now so you can rest easy, Trump is on the case!

More vagueness and no evidence to your accusations, never mind that they are attempts to deflect from the matter at hand.

We live in a nation of laws, not feelings. A law is a law, regardless of whether or not you disagree with it. The Executive branch sees that laws are executed. The law states that the HHS will reimburse insurers as part of cost-sharing. Congress failed to apportion funds for this.

A repeal of a law is done either through Congress or getting the courts to declare it unconstitutional. Note that the Executive branch is not part of this process. This is where things have gone bad as I mention above.

The required payments were ruled to be unconstitutional without appropriations, except that ruling was stayed until the appeal process completed. Therefore, it hasn't actually been declared unconstitutional.

Like I said before, no problem if the ruling was in effect. The problem here is that the ruling is not in effect, and the way the President has gone about this - declaring the payments illegal and refusing to execute the law.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Awwww too bad your gonna lose your free lunch from obumma .

Go get a job and buy your own damn insurance instead of expecting everyone else to support your useless ass .



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Awwww too bad your gonna lose your free lunch from obumma .

Go get a job and buy your own damn insurance instead of expecting everyone else to support your useless ass .


I make more alone than most families in the country and I have insurance through my employer. Try again.

Perhaps with something substantive, instead of libelous insults.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven




The President is not doing his job


Yes he is...

I just saw him tossing rolls of paper towels to the Puerto Ricans!!! What more do you want?



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Honestly, they should be grateful it wasn't cans of food hurled at their heads.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Its time you anti-trump phobias-ass's gave it a rest and let TRUMPANTASTIC do his sh.t!

Regardless of what people say he's a dam sure improvement on the last few presidents.

GO TRUMPY GO!




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join