Posted on 04/04/2015 6:45:17 PM PDT by EveningStar
... Regardless of whether you're a supporter or opponent of Obamacare, you may have missed an important "ruling" from the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week that resulted in Obamacare logging a key victory.
The case, Coons vs. Lew, was initially brought to court in 2011 by business owner Nick Coons and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Eric Novack. The two, with the help of additional legal backing, alleged that the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, would trim Medicare costs and potentially hurt their business by instituting reimbursement levels that wouldn't cover their own expenses. These allegations are where the term "Obamacare death panel" emerged, as the 15-member government panel would be in charge of potentially cutting Medicare rates in the future ...
Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the San Francisco-based Appeals Court by declining to hear the so-called "death panel" case, confirming that the existence of the IPAB isn't sufficient grounds to overturn or modify Obamacare ...
Although Obamacare proponents can relish this week's victory, a significantly bigger challenge looms this June when the Supreme Court is expected to make its ruling on King vs. Burwell ...
(Excerpt) Read more at fool.com ...
SCOTUS have become irrelivent.
There are now only 2 branches of government. The Executive branch and the Rubber Stamp branch.
The case, Coons vs. Lew, was initially brought to court in 2011 by business owner Nick Coons and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Eric Novack. The two, with the help of additional legal backing, alleged that the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, would trim Medicare costs and potentially hurt their business by instituting reimbursement levels that wouldn't cover their own expenses.
...
In August 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco dismissed the case by noting that that the IPAB didn't do any direct harm to either Nick Coons' business or Dr. Eric Novack. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the earliest point at which the IPAB would assert its power and potentially reduce Medicare reimbursements would be in 2019.
I'd like to know what idiot lawyers ever let these guys pursue this case in the first place. One of the basic principles of law is that you don't have any standing to file a lawsuit unless one of the following two conditions is met: (1) you are suffering some kind of loss or harm (and this means actual loss or harm now, not potential loss or harm sometime in the future; and/or (2) you are facing some kind of harm or loss that cannot be remedied through financial recompense (if you are in danger of bodily harm or death, for example).
For a medical practitioner or business owner to file a lawsuit based on what might happen in 2019 is preposterous. This is precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court didn't even agree to hear this case.
Thank you very much J. Roberts you simpering punk
there still is an origination clause challenge eventually.
ditto that.
Such condescension. The Left is truly the home of gifted intelligence. Only the smartest people need register as Democrats.
Thank you for pointing that out
“SCOTUS have become irrelivent.”
How’s that?
The Motley Fool living up to it’s name again.
Additionally, no one's "forcing" these doctors (at least yet ...) to provide services to Obamacare recipients. They can simply drop participation and be done with it.
My doctor has signs up that he DOES NOT ACCEPT Obamacare. He was listed in their "directory" without his consent, never signed up for the program yet every day his office is fending off calls from Obamacare recipients wanting to make appointments.
I wonder if he's got a case ..........
Bammy has them buffaloed.
Dynamic scoring is better than static scoring. Laws with effective dates in the future should be reviewed NOW.
Bammy’s pen and phone overrule them.
No, they shouldn't. Laws with effective dates in the future can always be changed before the effective date (especially when the effective date in this case was eight freaking years after the lawsuit was filed).
And in the case of ObamaCare, there is a high degree of likelihood that the Obama administration will unilaterally change the law or delay the effective date anyway (this is exactly what was done with the employer mandate, for example) ... which makes the whole law a farce.
At the highest level there is no more rule of law. Smack down bad law as it is passed. We already have way too many and a likelyhood of illogical contradiction.
Personally, I think non-compliance is going to end up being so prevalent with ObamaCare that the law itself will be completely useless. Do you think most of those “Occupy Wall Street” protestors will ever have medical insurance?
SCOTUS is like Obama - it makes law as it goes along. Look at them - Bader-Ginsburg, Soto-Mayor, Breyer, Kagan, Roberts - would you hire any if these idiots to defend you? Would you even buy a used car from one of these freaks or have a beer with one? They are sophomoric fools.
He should be hanged, drawn and quartered for this and other idiot decisions - Muchas gracias Jorge Boosch!!!!!!
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.