Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Report: Obamacare cost-sharing payments violated the Constitution
Hot Air.com ^ | July 7, 2016 | JOHN SEXTON

Posted on 07/07/2016 5:27:26 PM PDT by Kaslin

The Majority staff for two House Committees have released a report which concludes the Obama administration broke the law and violated the Constitution by making billions in Obamacare cost-sharing payments without congressional authorization.

There are two major payments set out under Obamacare. First, premium tax credits, often referred to as subsidies, offset the monthly cost of insurance. Second, cost-sharing reductions are payments made to insurance companies to offset high deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs. The Obamacare law included a permanent appropriation of money to pay for the premium subsidies but not for the cost-sharing payments.

The report issued Thursday demonstrates that the Obama administration initially recognized it did not have any authority to make these cost-sharing payments to insurers. The NY Times reports:

The Republican report says the administration’s treatment of the tax credits as it began setting up a new payment system validates the Republican criticism of the cost-sharing subsidies. The report notes that while the authority for the tax credit was undisputed, the administration itself could identify no funds available for the cost-sharing element.

A previously undisclosed 2012 Treasury Department memorandum included in the report stated “there is currently no appropriation to Treasury or to anyone else, for purposes of the cost-sharing payments to be made.” It adds that the eventual basis for making them “can be determined only in connection with whatever statute ultimately appropriates funds for the cost-sharing program.”

Republican investigators say the view that even the administration believed it needed to find new money was further bolstered by the administration’s decision in April 2013 to seek a nearly $4 billion annual appropriation for the cost-sharing program in its budget.

So Treasury could not identify a funding source and the administration went to Congress to ask for $4 billion in funding which clearly indicates it believed an appropriation from Congress was needed. But then the administration reversed course and withdrew that appropriation request during a phone call, not in writing as would normally be the case. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) then prepared a memo authorizing the payments without an appropriation.

The report says efforts by Congress to explore the administration’s decision were met with an “unprecedented” level of obstruction. From the executive summary of the report:

For well over a year, the committees have steadily pursued requests for documents and testimony about the Administration’s funding of the CSR program. Using a number of different
tactics, the Administration has impeded and obstructed the investigation at every turn. This level of obstruction by an Administration is unprecedented at both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means…

The Administration further instructed witnesses not to answer purely factual questions—including questions seeking the names of individuals involved in decisions about the source of
funding for the CSR program, or confirmation of the occurrence of meetings about the CSR program. When asked what barred the witnesses from answering these questions,
Administration lawyers explained that the Executive branch has “confidentiality interests” and “heightened sensitivities” that allow it to withhold this information from Congress. When asked to explain the basis of those “interests” and “sensitivities,” Administration lawyers refused to do so. No such legal privilege exists—nor has one ever existed—that supports the Administration’s position that it can withhold purely factual information from Congress.

The position of the Administration—that it can unilaterally block from disclosure to Congress the answer to any question that seeks internal or interagency communications, or an
undefined “confidentiality interest,” or even a fact that it does not want Congress to know—effectively exempts the entire Executive branch from congressional oversight.

The report concludes there is only one justification for this level of obstruction: The Obama administration violated the law and the Constitution:

the Administration’s actions make clear it believes congressional oversight to be an unnecessary nuisance. As a result, the committees are left with no choice but to conclude that the Administration has intentionally obstructed this investigation. The Administration did so because it broke the law and violated the Constitution in funding the CSR program through the permanent appropriation for tax refunds and credits.

In May, a federal judge sided with the GOP saying the administration’s cost-reduction spending was unconstitutional. That ruling, which blocked further cost-sharing payments, was stayed while the Obama administration makes an appeal.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: 0bamacare; commercecomm; energy; hwmcommittee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 07/07/2016 5:27:28 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In other news, the 0bama administration said they didn’t care.


2 posted on 07/07/2016 5:28:38 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (I apologize for not apologizing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So what. Obama can do whatever he wants.


3 posted on 07/07/2016 5:29:20 PM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So why do the GOP still fund it?


4 posted on 07/07/2016 5:36:54 PM PDT by tennmountainman ("Prophet Mountainman" Predicter Of All Things RINO...for a small pittance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

HELLO! So where did the Obama Administration get the money to make those cost sharing payments?

Seems to me that would be one ‘H’ of a slush fund to draw from, and still have weekly parties.


5 posted on 07/07/2016 5:38:39 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists Call 'em what you will, they all have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama’s not worried, because Paul Ryan will make sure he gets every penny he needs to fund his cost-sharing program, and not a penny less.


6 posted on 07/07/2016 5:45:11 PM PDT by Deo volente (They want to eradicate us, and will never stop. We need to eradicate them first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So? Whats new in corrupt communists controlled Washington DC.


7 posted on 07/07/2016 5:59:06 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
That's OK.

They didn't intend for it to be unconstitutional.

8 posted on 07/07/2016 6:08:06 PM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nice. Now Congress should sue the payees to force them to pay back their illegal payments to the U.S. Treasury.


9 posted on 07/07/2016 6:10:40 PM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

You just wait. You can depend on those Pubbies doing something about their outrage over this illegal spending.

Oh, wait. I forgot it’s an election year. Don’t get trampled when congress adjourns early so they can all go home to campaign.

Maybe Ryan will huff and puff about placing it on their agenda when they come back in January.


10 posted on 07/07/2016 6:11:08 PM PDT by FirstFlaBn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
So what? If the clown chief justice can maneuver to interpret the law as a “tax,” than what difference does it make? By the way clown Roberts, all revenue measures must originate in the House, this originated in the Senate, making it unconstitutional from the get go. As I said, so what?
11 posted on 07/07/2016 6:39:26 PM PDT by Fungi (Make America America again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Who cares what the girly boys of the GOP say? It doesn’t mean a thing.


12 posted on 07/07/2016 6:41:43 PM PDT by LouAvul (Freedom without responsibility is anarchy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No worries, Roberts will re-re-write the whole law to make it all better. Cuz that’s what SCOTUS does, right?


13 posted on 07/07/2016 6:42:26 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Unfortunately it’s too late to impeach this SOB, but hopefully under a Trump administration he will be prosecuted on any number of issues. WORST PRESIDENT EVER...


14 posted on 07/07/2016 6:47:25 PM PDT by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Unfortunately it’s too late to impeach this SOB, but hopefully under a Trump administration he will be prosecuted on any number of issues. WORST PRESIDENT EVER...


15 posted on 07/07/2016 6:47:27 PM PDT by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There is no Constitution as far as this Administration is concerned.

I do hope they end up spending 20-life for treating our country the way they have at some point.


16 posted on 07/07/2016 6:56:18 PM PDT by Boomer (liberalism is a mental disease with no cure but a frontal lobotomy will make them less of a jerk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Like it f’ing matters at this point.

It’s dead. Unbelievably sad.


17 posted on 07/07/2016 7:15:04 PM PDT by kropcke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
So why do the GOP still fund it?

Because they're in on it.

18 posted on 07/07/2016 7:29:32 PM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Boomer
I do hope they end up spending 20-life for treating our country the way they have at some point.

I don't, I'd rather go with this.

19 posted on 07/07/2016 7:31:45 PM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Somebody might be able to make a lot of money out of this by a qui tam action:

The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, also called the "Lincoln Law") is an American federal law which allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions against federal contractors claiming fraud against the government. The act of filing such actions is informally called "whistleblowing." Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15-25 percent) of any recovered damages. The Act provides a legal tool to counteract fraudulent billings turned in to the Federal Government. Claims under the law have been filed by persons with insider knowledge of false claims which have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs.

The provision allows a private person, known as a "relator," to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private detective or other person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The relator need not have been personally harmed by the defendant's conduct; instead, the relator is recognized as receiving legal standing to sue by way of a "partial assignment" to the relator of the injury to the government caused by the alleged fraud.[3] The information must not be public knowledge, unless the relator qualifies as an "original source."[4]

From Wikipedia

20 posted on 07/07/2016 8:06:33 PM PDT by T Ruth (Mohammedanism shall be defeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson