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
PhillyT:
Is all the giggling and shifting from foot to foot because you cannot defend your argument?
And here’s the LA Times. Health care costs have continued to rise for employers, who of course shift the burden to their workers.
Think this is tough? Try an independent policy where you don’t have an employer sharing the cost for you.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-costs-20150922-story.html
“There is also growing evidence that the steep rise in deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses such as co-pays are preventing workers from benefiting from the overall slowdown in healthcare cost growth.”
The biggest hit to my premium came right away when the ACA was first implemented with individual policies. After that, the increase hasn’t been as high. It couldn’t, or we would be paying thousand of dollars a month in premiums within a few years. But the actual out of pocket cost of health care is huge and getting bigger -with astronomical deductibles, co-pays, and more and more prescriptions and care not being covered at all.
“Unaffordable deductibles are also emerging as a major issue for health plans being sold on marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act. The marketplaces, now in their second year, were designed to help people who don’t get health plans through an employer.
Most of the nearly 10 million people in marketplace plans qualify for subsidies to offset their premiums, but deductibles in many plans are thousands of dollars.”
“The average deductible for a silver plan on marketplaces nationwide this year is more than $2,500, according to other research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
This is from the LA Times, a very Liberal leaning newspaper. Even they have admitted that the ACA high deductibles are a major barrier to health care.
Cadillac Healthplan Tax:
“The new report indicates that about 1 in 5 large employers offer at least one health plan that would be subject to the new tax. And 13% of large firms offering benefits have already taken steps to avoid the tax, including switching to less generous plans.”
So now employees who used to have the best of the best in insurance now have to lose it because the government will soon start taxing their employers on it. How are these people better off?
My biggest problem is that Obama, Pelosi, et al blatantly lied to the American People to shove this bill down our throats. Obama lied over and over again that the plan would save American families on average $2500/year. What’s not to like about that, besides the fact that it’s not true? He said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. He said if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. ALL LIES. Then Gruber admitted that the bill was deliberately written in tortuous language, making it as long and impenetrable as possible, to take advantage of the stupidity of American voters.
People who support ACA are defending politicians and government officials who think they are stupid and easily lead.
If you feel so confident in the rightness of your bill, you don’t lie to get it passed.
All citizens eager to buy health insurance that have been approved by the insurance regulator in Texas raise your hand.
Okay, good.
Please go to the head of the line marked Texas regulators of Texas chemical plants.
Haha. My 12:48 comment was supposed to have “independent” not “indecent.” That auto-correct must have been developed by Freud.
The crippling rise of deductibles. Now the Middle Class are the ones not seeking medical care because they can’t afford their deductibles. Soon, it is projected that they are the ones who will be crowding emergencies rooms.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/01/middle-class-workers-struggle-to-pay-for-care-despite-insurance/19841235/
According to a recent Kaiser study, under Obamacare, deductibles have risen 7 times faster than wages.
“We all remember the promise – President Obama famously told us time and time again that ObamaCare would lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year for families. But unless you’re receiving a giant subsidy from the government for your insurance, you’re not paying less in premiums, in fact, for employer sponsored plans, premiums have risen nearly $5,000 since Obama promised to cut them. What about deductibles? They haven’t decreased either.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/24/kaiser-study-deductibles-under-obamacare-rising-seven-times-faster-than-inflation/
“Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the largest state marketplace in the country told the L.A. Times that “Deductibles are a big problem for consumers.” He’s right. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “The average deductible for a silver plan on marketplaces nationwide this year is more than $2,500.””
This is from the director of Covered CA, the state exchange.
“If you’re already paying a couple of hundred dollars a month for your mandated health insurance and have a large deductible, you could be out nearly $5,000 before your insurance even kicks in. If you couldn’t afford insurance before ObamaCare, this likely isn’t affordable either. At least before ObamaCare, high deductible policies had low monthly costs, and a wise consumer could save the money they weren’t spending on high premiums. But those plans aren’t ACA compliant and are no longer available.”
Anyone claiming that Obamacare did not increase premiums and deductibles, or that Open Enrollment means people can be unable to buy insurance until the next enrollment period if some criminal interferes with their premium payment, is a liar.
Private insurance across state lines doesn’t work.
Proposals to authorize the sale of private health insurance “across state lines” are often promoted to address the challenges of high health insurance costs and a lack of choice among insurers and have been a core component of alternative health reform proposals since the mid-2000s. Critics, however, argue that across state lines proposals would lead to deregulation and a “race to the bottom” where health insurers relocate to the states with the least burdensome regulations. Despite the often forceful arguments for and against across state lines proposals, there has been little opportunity to assess how they work in practice. To understand the impact of across state lines proposals on the availability of health insurance and the competitiveness of state health insurance markets, we analyzed legislation that has been enacted in six states — Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island, Washington and Wyoming — to require, encourage or study the feasibility of allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines or the formation of interstate health insurance compacts. To gain a more in-depth understanding of the laws’ impact, we also reviewed related materials such as regulations, studies and reports and conducted interviews with government officials and insurers.
We find that while across state lines proposals cite many important goals — such as enhancing consumer choice, increasing competition and making insurance more affordable — the across state lines proposals as currently enacted in six states do not address the true drivers of health insurance costs nor do they adequately take into account the complexity of how insurance products are sold and regulated. The proposals also underestimate the administrative hurdles necessary for full implementation. As a result, none of the across state lines laws resulted in a single insurer entering a new market or the sale of a single new insurance product.
T Hall:
“My experience with healthcare under Obamacare is completely different. I can only conclude that you’re fabricating stories about high expenses of you and your “friends”.”
You are lying and I can prove it.
Here is link to healthcare.gov:
https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage-outside-open-enrollment/special-enrollment-period/
Please look up what qualifies for open enrollment. delivering a baby (but not getting pregnant), getting divorced, or getting fired.
Having an indecent policy and not paying your premium because your identity was stolen and fraud caused your bank account to get locked is not one of the items listed.
“You also don’t qualify if you lose coverage because you don’t pay your premium.”
PhillyT:
My link was to the actual government website. If it’s filled with misinformation, please take it up with the government reporting its own figures. The trustees claim SSDI and Medicare will run out of money, and the situation is dire.
I don’t make it up. I just report it.
No answer, so vapid condescension. Classic liberal dissembling behavior. I have owned a business, unlike the people who have no answers, just involuntary head nods and feigned “chuckling.”
I’m chuckling. I am chuckling…
So. Utterly. Clueless.
Philly, one can only chuckle and shake one’s head.
Darwinism will eventually eliminate most of the takers in a single payer govt. system. Not in my lifetime, but within a few generations. Many will die waiting for service, just like veterans do every day.
You takers get what you want!!You can have your VA system single payers. We producers want private. This is incredible. Why must we smart people take what you losers want. You can have it. Just leave us smart folks alone. Stunning fascist mindset. You hate private insurance. We get it. You love govt. Just leave us alone!!
Right on Annie. Private insurance sold across state lines would be a lowest-common-denominator race-to-the-bottom disaster the likes of which you’ve never seen. Folks from Wisconsin buying a policy from Texas and then trying to get them to pay up, or un-cancel the policy…agreeing to out-of -state arbitration paid for by the insurer without having any idea what they’re getting into. Can’t wait for that.
State insurance boards are one of the last best petty-bureaucrat political favor jobs in America. Ladies and Gents, I give you Ben Nelson.
These people are undoubtedly smarter than some people here.
http://www.pnhp.org
Who is PNHP
Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 20,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance.
A two tiered system. Govt. single payer for those who want something like that great VA system, and private insurance for those who want good, private sector healthcare. The private insurance will be sold across state lines and other changes to make it more competitive. You want single payer, you got it. We smart people don’t want govt. healthcare, and we won’t be forced to take it.
Curious to hear from those opposed to both the ACA and Medicare For All.
What is your plan?
The republicans shouted repeal and replace for months but never once offered up a “replace” idea. Not one.
So let’s hear from you.
SunnyJ at 6:18 PM 20th. Great comment. These folks have very thick skulls and logic means nothing to them. It is if the are aliens programed to implement something and therefore cannot waver in their thought and actions even when provided with overwhelming evidence. Maybe they’re ETs or they come from a different genealogical tree in which instead of coming from retiles they came from insects like ants where the Group is more important than the individual ant.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt
Medicare Is Not “Bankrupt”
Health Reform Has Improved Program’s Financing
Claims by some policymakers that the Medicare program is nearing “bankruptcy” are highly misleading. Although Medicare faces financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate. Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances.
Medicare’s financing challenges would be much greater without the health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook. Repealing the ACA, a course of action promoted by some who simultaneously claim that the program is approaching “bankruptcy,” would worsen Medicare’s financial situation.
The 2015 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2030. Even in 2030, when the HI trust fund is projected for exhaustion, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 86 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 80 percent in 2050 and then rise gradually to 84 percent in 2089. This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both. But the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2030, as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.
Erica P L – the Federal Government is legally bankrupt. It can not pay it’s bill unless it prints fiat currency and no where in the Constitution is that allowed. Our Government is only allowed to make gold and silver coins and the States can only accept them as legal tender. Check to money clauses. The reality is that we abrogated the Constitution in 1933, actually FDR did and the rest is history. You’ve started to see the affects since 2008 but it appears based on recent bond market activities, things are starting to accelerate and I don’t mean in a positive way. Once it gets out that US Treasuries have already starting losing their values internationally, with many of the banks selling off the holdings, who will then buy our debt? Our banks have already been buying them but they can never afford that amount of debt we have outstanding and require on a monthly basis to operate our government.
Many economists and investment bankers have been writing about this for years. Most people do not focus on the macroeconomic activities because they are so extensive and take a lot of time to just read and/or hear about. Thinking that the main stream media is going to drop the info in you lap is not how this system works.
“The answer is still Medicare for all,” anonymous contemporary liberal collectivist parasite.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Karl Marx.
The latter lasted precisely 74 years.
How long will insolvent Medicare and the entire compulsory American welfare state persist?