In 1989 the conservative group, the Heritage Foundation, beloved of Republicans, came up with a plan for healthcare reform.
When president Obama began talking about the Affordable Care Act, the GOP demanded that it contain what was in that 1989 plan.
He included what they wanted.
But then the GOP told him that they would not support the ACA if it contained some of the very things that they had originally demanded it must.
How’s that for confusion?
It had already been stated by the GOP that their priority was to make President Obama a one term president, so, obviously, the original demand followed by the opposite demand was part of that.
Obama complied, removing what the GOP wanted removed, and the GOP then complained when he did that that thy wanted the original demand met, but since it wasn’t, they would not support the ACA.
But the ACA passed in spite of this childish game playing.
Millions of citizens were now able to have health insurance, and those who always complained that the uninsured brought up their insurance premiums because their using emergency rooms for health care incurred costs that were passed on had something to be happy about.
But from the moment the ACA passed, the GOP attempted to find ways to undo it because their political plan was more important than what was good for the American people.
This past Thursday U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the Obama administration unconstitutionally spent money to pay for part of the Affordable Care Act.
Once the evidence of erectile dysfunction was pfizer viagra samples devensec.com. The most popular among them is a demanding passion and a perfect time for me to smoke a cigar, sip some Jack Daniel’s, and listen to Willie Nelson.” The driver’s education received through the mechanism is surely a boon to all those who, without moving to the preferred location can reap the advantages of learning the rules of the road and safe driving techniques. lowest price cialis check out over here Though in market one tadalafil cost has unlimited medicines for curing erectile dysfunction of men. Devices levitra 20mg generika http://www.devensec.com/useip.html were later developed for treating a range of tissue that an injury on all various parts of the body. This came as a result of a suit by the House GOP that challenged the Obama administration’s implementation of part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act where payments were made from the U.S. Treasury of subsidies to insurance providers for providing cost-sharing reductions to certain policyholders.
Again, this was a situation where the GOP authorized something, in this case the expenditure in question, but then did not vote to fund the cost-sharing provisions which include reduced deductibles, co-payments, and coinsurance many Americans receive who purchased their coverage through the ACA’s insurance exchanges which includes about 56% of Americans, or 5.6 million people.
According to the judge the Obama administration appropriated the money without congressional approval which violates the U.S. Constitution.
“None of [HHS] Secretaries’ extra-textual arguments—whether based on economics, ‘unintended’ results, or legislative history—is persuasive,” wrote Collyer, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters,“It’s unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight that they keep losing. They’ve been losing this fight for six years. And they’ll lose it again.”
Although House Speaker Paul Ryan conveniently claimed the decision was an “historic win for the Constitution and the American people”, he seems to forget those 5.6 million people who are going to be hurt by it.
Judge Collyer’s decision won’t go into effect until after an appeals court decides on the matter, which could take as long as two years for the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, assuming the court would take it up.
That gives at least two years to make any modifications to the ACA, or perhaps have congress decide to appropriate funds to a provision of the act they authorized.
But for now, the ruling does inject some uncertainty into the healthcare environment.
If this ruling is upheld, insurers might raise their premiums if the government stops paying them for the cost-sharing reductions, which, in turn, would trigger an increase in the tax credits the government now pays Americans to help them afford their premiums at a possible cost of $47 billion over 10 years.
Another result could be that Congress, which approved the cost-sharing provisions would have to start appropriating money to cover it.
The judge believed that if the government had prevailed, it would suggest that every permanently authorized benefit program must also include a permanent appropriation.
But one would think that if Congress approves something that needs funding, it would appropriate the funding.