Federal judge refuses to order the Trump administration to resume ACA payments

Washington Post ^ | Oct. 25, 2017 | Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The illegality was looting FANNIE/FREDDIE to pay them in the first place.

[lonevoice]

Next step, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Gosh, I wonder how they will rule?

[Spktyr]

The discounts are mandatory. But the ‘reimbursements’ aren’t.

[lepton]

I think that says that the discounts are required, not the re-imbursements.

[Trevieze]

Another court has already ruled them illegal. The Repubs sued Dumbo and one.

[BlueLancer]

The Repubs sued Dumbo and one.

"And one" what?

[daler]

I'd like to see theTrump administrative publicly announce that any and all rulings by the 9th Circuit will henceforth be ignored.

Let the left caterwaul about it...what else is new?

[MortMan]

Both views are partially correct. The ACA law does require the payments, but does not permanently appropriate the money to pay them - unlike the tax credits that get paid directly to low-income insured.

The payments to insurance companies was specifically NOT appropriated by congress, and the house sued the Obama administration for “finding” the money to make the payments anyway. The house won, and President Trump decided to follow the law - as he should.

The nest step is congress - and they are the ONLY people who can authorize the payments.