Skip to content

Federal judge rules Obamacare subsidy funding is unconstitutional

May 12, 2016

  Earlier today, according to this story, a federal judge ruled that the Obamacare subsidy funding is unconstitutional because the Congress did not fund it and as we all know all funding must originate in the House of Representatives. Here is more:

A federal judge on Thursday ruled the Obama administration has been improperly funding an Obamacare subsidy program, a huge win for the House of Representatives’ lawsuit against the White House.

Congress authorized the program but never actually provided the money for it, wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. The program will be allowed to continue, pending appeal.

“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one,” wrote Collyer, a George W. Bush appointee.

  The program, as you read above, will continue pending appeal. While this is being lauded by conservatives as a major victory against Obamacare which could be the nail in the healthcare reform law I would not get my hopes up if I were you. While I agree with the decision based on Constitutional reasoning nothing is going to change.

  Even if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the ruling is not overturned do you really believe the Republicans in the Congress are going to cut off the spending when they are facing this during an election year:

The ruling, if it stands, could be a significant financial setback for the millions of low-income Americans who benefit from the cost-sharing subsidies, which help people pay for out-of-pocket costs like co-pays at the doctor’s office.

  It is simply not going to happen because it would hand the Democrats the Congress and Republican care more about holding onto their power than anything else, Obamacare is here to stay whether you like it or not. The Republicans put on a good show but that is all it is, I have said it time and time again–this is the Hegelian Dialectic at work. And if you think Donald Trump is going to be any different you have probably forgotten that the billionaire businessman said earlier this year, while toeing the Democratic talking point of people dying on the streets, that  he likes the Obamacare mandate

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

11 Comments leave one →
  1. May 12, 2016 11:11 pm

    If we lose this one, which has little to do with Obamacare, but more the conrol of the purse, Congress is finished. It means the executive and move and fund whatever it choses. A big deal that no one is talking about as I understand it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • May 13, 2016 5:22 am

      I am not holding out hope that we are going to win this one in the end after what we have seen recently but I think you are right about how important this one is.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. petermc3 permalink
    May 13, 2016 7:30 am

    the legislative branch is already compromised. His next target, the judiciary whose ruling, should it go against Chakacare, he may also choose to ignore. Lights out…

    Liked by 1 person

  3. May 13, 2016 9:39 pm

    As usual the Go Along to Get Along party is not prepared with fixes to the ACA. Here is their opening, but they are not prepared. Time to vote them all out.

    Liked by 2 people

    • May 14, 2016 5:39 am

      I don’t think they ever really cared about repealing it. I think that they think this is a great political issue they can use during election cycles but sooner or later the usefulness will be gone and then we will see their true intentions.


      • May 14, 2016 7:50 am

        Repeal as you have said is pie in the sky. However, they can offer constructive tweaks – tort reform, family glitch.

        Liked by 1 person

      • May 14, 2016 6:56 pm

        Yes they could, but I don’t even see any of them who seem to be serious about this either. It is as if they have given up, if they really were fighting in the first place…


  4. May 14, 2016 11:10 am

    Was this really about helping those in need? Seems like ‘need’ has a new definition too: increasing insurance rates, padding the virtual pockets of the elite plus control/power which is the goal of many involved. The fact that lawsuits are occurring within the Gov. structure doesn’t say much does it?

    Liked by 1 person

    • lou222 permalink
      May 14, 2016 3:02 pm

      Ha, the ones in “need” were the Government needing more money from us for them to spend. The needy were taken care of before with medicaid and those that had a little money that could not afford it then still cannot afford it now. BUT, now they will be paying big bucks for a little coverage or penalized for not having it….so tell me WHO did it actually benefit???? GOVERNMENT AND MORE CONTROL OF US!

      Liked by 2 people

    • May 14, 2016 6:57 pm

      I agree with both of you. This was never really about helping the needy, they already had a plan in place for this. This was all about control and special interests.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: