More on that as the program unfolds.
The LA Times has the story. “House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the [Regime] was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.” Now, what this made… The short version of the story is Obama comes up with the employee mandate that everybody has to buy insurance, and the reason for this is they want young people who will never make claims being forced to buy it.
That’s on paper. That’s how they were gonna pay for actual health care for seasoned citizens and the catastrophically injured or sick. Well, a lot of young people are not buying. They’re paying the fines. The money has fallen way short, as it was always going to. There isn’t enough money. We don’t have any money anyway. We’re $19 trillion in debt. But there was never enough money — either appropriated or available — to fund all of these various aspects of Obamacare. So what did Obama do?
He just went in, essentially by executive order, and said that we’re going to subsidize insurance companies who are losing money in order to keep them on board with Obamacare. And that was the unconstitution. You can’t spend money without Congress authorizing it. Obama didn’t wait around for that ’cause he knew he would lose. So they just essentially went to the Treasury and started writing checks, whatever it took to subsidize insurers. The Regime was unconstitutionally spending money to substitute subsidize health insurers without getting an appropriation from Congress.
“Last year, US District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing” Obamacare. You notice something here? This is classic LA Times. A little media example here. “Last year, US District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president…” This is designed to gin up anti-Republican sentiment.
These evil Republicans, they denied Obama the money — and this cockamamie judge went along with it! That’s the way the reader, according to the LA Times, is supposed to interpret this: “The GOP-controlled House.” Then yesterday the same judge “ruled the [Regime] is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans. The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and,” as is the case with everything with Obama, “stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal. …
“House Speaker Paul Ryan called the ruling ‘a historic win for the Constitution and the American people. The court ruled that the administration overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people’s representatives.'” Flat-out, how can this thing be overturned on appeal? It can’t be, legally. Somebody’s gotta go outside the Constitution to do it. See, this is… Remember the explanation a couple of weeks ago about what the MacGuffin is in a book or a movie? It’s a technique.
A MacGuffin is what the hero in a book wants, or a movie. Any story, it’s what the hero wants. And, of course, there are villains trying to deny the hero, or trying to get also for themselves what the hero wants. And what it leads you to is the media never getting down deep, digging down deep to report what actually, say, the details of Obamacare are. They just cover the story, “Will Obama win? Will Obama get Obamacare passed? Will Obama beat this judge? Will Obama succeed in overturning the court ruling?”
They don’t spend any time at all telling you why Obamacare’s a disaster. They don’t get into any detail explaining why this is a slam-dunk court ruling because the Regime cannot do what they did. And so overturn it on appeal means they’re gonna have to find an Obama-friendly judge or appellate court, which is entirely possible. But if this is overturned, the law is not a factor. Politics is. And once again, the judiciary finds itself as the final arbiter in political matters, which was something never envisioned by the founders.
This is just one of a dozen or more examples where Obama is spending money in ways Congress has never approved and for which there is no legal procedure. Obama is behaving unconstitutionally. “The health care law says insurers [i.e., insurance companies] who enroll eligible, low-income Americans shall cover the costs of their deductibles and co-payments, but promises the federal government ‘shall make periodic and timely payments’ to cover those costs. The law is not entirely clear on where this money will come from, however.”
The law does not spell out where the money will come from, though. So the Obamacare law itself is unconstitutional. Yeah, we’re gonna find money to subsidize insurance companies, because if you’re gonna have Obamacare, you gotta have it succeed in a political perception case. So you “want everybody to have health care.” You want it to be said, “Everybody’s got health insurance!” Here come low-income people that can’t afford diddly-squat, and insurance companies are forced to insure them ’cause over here on the side the Regime’s gonna subsidize them. And how they gonna…?
Because the insurance companies are gonna pay! See, if you can get this deal, the insurance companies are going to pay the deductible and copayments of what are called here “low-income,” the poor. But they’re not because over here in the next door in what has been described today as “a casino,” the government’s gonna simply go grab another stash of money and reimburse the insurance companies. In this way, Obama keeps them on-board and public supporters of Obamacare. “At first, the administration asked Congress for an appropriation to cover these costs. But when that request went nowhere in Congress…
It was turned down, meaning: No, you can’t spend the money. You don’t have the authority. But never mind. “[O]fficials at the Department of Health and Human Services said they could continue to pay these required reimbursements.” The law says we’re gonna pay; we’re gonna pay. Congress says: No, we didn’t authorize this money; you can’t spend it. The Regime said: Screw you. “They said payments were like ‘other appropriate entitlements like Medicaid’ that are covered by permanent federal funds and not subject to an annual appropriation.”
Well, if that’s true — and, of course, it’s not. If that’s true then why’d they try to get appropriations from Congress for this? Why? In fact, if you can fund any entitlement simply ’cause it exists without supplemental appropriations, then why even…? (interruption) And that’s the answer. That’s right. Why do we even have to mess with Congress? We can just spend it on our own! Hello statism or worse.