This afternoon, Judge Rosemary Collyer issued her ruling on the motion by the Administration to forego a ruling on the merits in the United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, a challenge brought by the House to unilateral action taken by the Administration under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). After losing its motion to dismiss the case on standing grounds, the Administration sought (over the objections of the House) to remove the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia without ruling on the merits of the case. Judge Collyer denied the motion and set the case for final briefing and ultimately a final ruling.
The ruling today means that the United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the “power of the purse.” The Administration has long argued that it has the authority to order the payment of what will amount to $175 billion over the next ten years to insurance companies without an appropriation of funds by Congress, notwithstanding Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution which provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” We are eager to present the House’s merits arguments to the Court and remain confident that our position will ultimately prevail in establishing the unconstitutional conduct alleged in this lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome, the public deserves an answer to this fundamental constitutional question.
Judge Collyer’s decision is linked below.
I would again like to thank our extraordinary team in this litigation. Specifically, I would like to thank General Counsel Kerry Kircher; Deputy General Counsel William Pittard; Senior Assistant General Counsel Todd Tatelman; and Assistant Counsels Eleni Roumel, Isaac Rosenberg, and Kimberly Hamm. It is an honor to be part of this team and this case.
Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel, United States House of Representatives v. Burwell
BarkinDog suggests with a straight face that we’d all be better off if we just had healthcare like the VA system! That’s some excellent farce, right there.
We have already experimented with socialized health care. It’s called the VA. Our honored veterans died waiting in line because un-fireable government officials threw out their paperwork to make the system look like it worked.
And if you have a type of illness, cancer, or surgery that requires a specialist not in the VA, you are out of luck.
Over and over we prove that our bloated, inefficient government over pays for contracts that under-deliver, and that highly enough placed government officials are above the law.
Only a fool keeps repeating an experiment hoping for a different outcome.
Instead of making a convoluted law we had to “pass in order to understand what’s in it”, that literally is 6 feet tall when stacked, we should start afresh. Do very short, one to two page bills that our people in Congress can (and had better!) read, and understand.
That will make us very flexible and agile in our attempts to improve health care. It is quite easy to experiment here and there with simple changes, adjusting or repealing if they don’t work out.
But a 6 page behemoth gets the response that we’d better not repeal it because it’s too big to fail. Too complicated to start over. We’ve made too big a mess and now can’t untangle ourselves.
What a stupid reason to keep a bad law.
And since this law actually costs the poor more than before, because now they have to pay out of pocket to see a good doctor, it’s not actually helping them. And what about all this prescription drugs taken off formulary to keep those spiraling health care costs down? The poor have to pay for that, and now, because of Obamacare, they don’t even get an off formulary co-pay or credit for their deductible.
What about people like me directly harmed by Obamacare’s Open Enrollment? My bank information was stolen, and it interfered with my premium payment. Obamacare dictated that I had only 30 days to make my payment from when it is due. The subsidized have 90. So it didn’t matter that I didn’t realize there was any problem, or that I was the victim of a crime. I got cancelled. Obamacare drove most of the insurance providers out of state because it costs insurance companies a lot more than they were promised. So there are less options and less competition. And Open Enrollment means that I had to be uninsured until Next Year’s Open Enrollment. I couldn’t be added to my husband’s grandfathered policy because of Open Enrollment, would have a gap in my insurance, AND to add insult to injury, I would have been fined.
I don’t know what I would have done if I didn’t have a relative who was an executive at a company an hour and a half away from my home who could hire me.
Every mile I drive, I curse Obamacare and every irresponsible, negligent politician who voted for it, as well as all the voters who willfully turned a blind eye to the accurately predicted problems with Obamacare and voted in politicians who implemented it.
For shame.
We are so far removed from a government that “shall not” that it is consider hate speech for members of Congress to suggest actually following the rule of law. This is what we get when progressivism teaches “shall not” is subordinate to “ought to”.
Keep on truckin’, JT!
I remember the happiness of a couple of my friends when they got subsidized Obamacare policies.
That happiness has turned to ashes. They pay more now for healthcare than they ever did before. Their medications aren’t covered, they have to pay out of pocket to see a good doctor. One of my friends says every single doctor she’s seen who accepts Obamacare has been terrible.
The only people who might think Obamacare is a good idea might be those who’ve never seen a doctor before, or ever had insurance, so they have no idea how substandard their care under Obamacare really is.
Take this woman in Oregan, whose state Medicaid policy refused her end of life care, but included in the decline letter a list of patients who would assist her suicide.
You see, Obamacare cuts more and more funds available per patient in Medicaid, so we’ll see more of these types of financial decisions.
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-end-of-life-medical-20151019-story.html
What an interesting medical ethics debate this will engender. The topic of assisted suicide and its unintended consequences has been studied for years.
Unfortunately, some Liberals seem to think there is a magic money tree that springs up to pay for unlimited illegal immigration, amnesty, and all those taxes that drive small business employers out of business or out of state. There is a consequence to spreading ourselves too thin, and some of those unintended consequences can be dire.
“Daniel Sulmasy, a physician and medical ethics professor at the University of Chicago, concluded in a 1998 research study that physicians inclined to conserve resources were more likely to write lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients than those not concerned about keeping costs down.
That’s particularly worrisome, Sulmasy said in an interview, as California tries to manage the growing costs of Medi-Cal.
Under Obamacare, about a third of all Californians are now covered by the program, and its costs have climbed 74% since 2013 to more than $91 billion a year.
The federal government covers most of the costs but will begin shifting the expenses to the state after next year. California is already struggling with an $18-billion annual contribution, and that will rise in coming years.
Sulmasy also argues that as lethal treatments for the dying become more common, patients could face societal pressures from friends and relatives to unburden their caregivers or avoid racking up medical bills that drain family wealth.”
Dear Barking Dog. Congress is a simple majority. That’s it! From what I understand the ACA is taking in 40% of what it needs to take in to keep this fiasco operating. 80% of the 40% have their hands out. Our health care system is still a work in process. If the President can just spend money at will, what do we need congress for. We can probably do without the Senate too. Supposedly we have a form of government that has checks and balances. Three branches of government to look over each others shoulder. Unfortunately the 3 branches don’t matter anymore. We just have 2 political parties. Not good!
Guess what will happen when the insurance companies don’t get their subsidy monies from the House, your rates will skyrocket like never before. Consequences suck.
Please, God, help us to unwind Obamacare and start over.
This monstrosity of a law is akin to burning down your neighbor’s house because it has termites. Sure, the termites are gone, but your neighbor is worse off.
Anyone who voted for this law caused health insurances costs to skyrocket, people to lose their doctors, cancer patients to lose access to treatment centers, and reduced access to prescription drugs.
For shame.
Time for Universal Healthcare once and for all. If the Republicans (they do not represent me) win this lawsuit it might be time, after Democrats win the White House again, to do it in earnest. Enough with Private Health Insurance involvement in our health care.
I am very sorry that people may lose their subsidies. The Obama administration has been acting like a dictatorship for a long while and congress sits on their hands. Our debt is over 18 trillion now, we’ve got to stop the bleeding. This country is so far away from the right track, we can’t even see the track we should be on! For an educated man, our president acts like he hasn’t a clue. An educated nincompoop! God help us!
Perhaps Prof. Turley would allow an amendment to his statement that payment is to be made to insurance companies to payment is to be made to insurance companies for the healthcare of United States citizens.
If Government insured health care is good enough for the people who are most in need of health care i.e. old people, poor people, and Veterans, why isn’t it good enough for everybody else? And why have private insurance companies been able to profit so handsomely for insuring only the segment of the population that rarely needs health care while the public insures those who tend to need the most health care?
Back atcha Annie: If the taxes to support subsidies continue to be paid by people who depend on that money to afford food and education for their children, we will see exactly what Obamacare has wrought. I wonder how it must feel to know one’s participation in this un-Constitutional taxation and spending might cause others to have no way to pay for their own family’s needs.
I am going to ask my Congressman to file suit to take away the health care benefits which have gone to member of Congress for many years. The members of Congress need to stand on the same footing as those of us who do not have public health care benefits.
But maybe the case is “ripe” for a plea bargain.
I do not think that a majority of the members of Congress have Standing to speak on behalf of all the members of Congress. Hence, there is no Standing to Sue.
The only interesting thing about this case is guessing what rationale the Chief Justice will devise to side with the Administration. Because otherwise, God forbid, the Administration might actually find it necessary to reach some compromise with Congressional Republicans to keep the subsidies flowing.
Can’t wait for the Freedom Caucus to run the United States government.
It seems that the Supreme Court has recently struggled with the King’s English in interpreting some clearly written sentences. I hope they get this one right.
If the subsidies are lost by people who depend on them to afford their health insurance, we will see exactly what this lawsuit has wrought. I wonder how it must feel to know one’s participation in this lawsuit might cause others to have no health insurance, meaning no health care.