Posted on 04/12/2017 1:44:55 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Major medical groups kept up the pressure on U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday to maintain funding Obamacare subsidies that are paid directly to insurers, warning that not doing so would destabilize the individual insurance markets that millions of people use to buy health insurance.
House of Representatives Republicans sued the Obama administration for funding the subsidies, which they argue have to be appropriated by Congress. A federal judge in May 2016 ruled in favor of the Republicans, prompting an appeal by the Obama administration. The case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Without the subsidies, the letter on Wednesday said, more insurers could leave the Obamacare exchanges, premiums for 2018 and beyond would rise, and providers would have additional uncompensated care costs, because they would not receive payments that help cover the costs of low-income patients.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Ah yes the looters and moochers line up at the trough.
Tell that to my friend who signed up for Obamacare when her employer dropped her insurance and she was forced to sign up.
Then she got a new job which had good insurance. Guess what? She can't get off Obamacare. It is in the fine print that once you sign up that is it, they will never remove you from the system.
She is not accessing Obamacare at all, but that doesn't stop the federal government from harassing the hell out of her.
Earlier this month, Harvard Ph.D. Jerome Corsi of InfoWars (@jerome_corsi) and a CPA "who worked for two years for a major U.S. accounting firm as an outside auditor for Freddie Mac," confirmed a 2012 scheme hatched by the Obama administration.
The audacious looting involved funnelling hundreds of billions in dividends from Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prop up the failing Obamacare program - by paying subsidies to insurers to remain in the system. [Snip]
The conclusion reached by Corsi and others is that this was probably illegal. In fact, House Republicans actually sued the Obama Administration in 2014 over the fact that the subsidies to insurers weren't appropriated by congress and won, which the Obama administration appealed.
Zerohedge and the Atlanta Journal Constitution pointed out last week, the Trump administration has until May 22nd to decide whether or not to pursue the appeal: (Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Cut if off. Too much handouts. It is no wonder that we are broke and have so many freeloaders.
Indeed, they should get the message that Trump represents the people, not corporate interests.
Because insurers provide so much care they should be paid before hospitals, nurses, labs and doctors. I remember how well my insurer stood by my daughters side to assist after she was resuscitated on the OR table. By all means, pay their dear souls first.
Probably the only reason that these insurance and medical groups are not seeking a constitutional solution to Obamacare subsidies is that they, and our dear, low-information lawmakers, have never been taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
Either that, or career lawmakers are blatantly ignoring the fed’s constitutional limitations.
The fed’s limited powers are evidenced by the excerpts below, these excerpts clarifications of the fed’s limited powers by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices.
Regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. Regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the insurance mandate, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia clarifies that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch is approved but turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.