[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles

Title: News the MSM refuses to cover
Source: Me
URL Source: https://godfatherpolitics.com/five- ... -against-disastrous-obamacare/
Published: Aug 26, 2018
Author: Me
Post Date: 2018-08-26 16:50:44 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 521
Comments: 3

Five States Win Massive $839 Million Judgment Against Disastrous Obamacare

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is celebrating this week after winning an $839 million judgment against Barack Obama’s disastrous Obamacare policy in what is a major blow to Obama’s chief achievement.

The misnamed Affordable Care Act (ACA) — derisively better known as Obamacare — was requiring states to pay a Health Insurance Provider Fee even though the law itself does not require it. So, five conservative leaning states took Obama to court over the slight.

And now they’ve won the case (which is Texas v. United States, No. 7:15-cv-151, for those playing at home).

As Breitbart News reports:

Latest: BREAKING: Ariz. Sen. John McCain Has Died at 81

Paxton sued in federal court, joined by Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Louisiana. The five states’ lawsuit argues that this tax/fee is illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the ACA clearly exempts states from this payment and also that even if the statute did allow it, such taxes would violate the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution when imposed on sovereign states.

Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed on the statutory issue (the APA claim), striking down the Obama HHS rule because it violates the plain language of the ACA law. O’Connor ordered the federal government to pay Texas the $305 million that the Lone Star State had paid in HIPF fees, as well as the fees of the other states, for a total of $839 million.

“Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple,” Paxton said after Thursday’s ruling. “We all know that the feds cannot tax the states, and we’re proud to return this illegally collected money to the people of Texas.”

Having struck down the HIPF tax on statutory grounds, the court did not even need to reach the constitutional claim. Under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, federal courts are supposed to issue constitutional rulings only if there is no lesser law upon which to grant plaintiffs the relief they seek. There is no reason to doubt that the states would have won on their constitutional argument if necessary, however, because the federal government cannot tax states under the Tenth Amendment’s intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine.

Naturally, the mainstream media seems to be utterly ignoring this story in favor of playing up fake stories about how Trump is headed for jail.

Rest of the article is at the link: https://godfatherpolitics.com/five-states-win-massive-839-million-judgment-against-disastrous-obamacare/

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: CZ82 (#0)

Naturally, the mainstream media seems to be utterly ignoring this story in favor of playing up fake stories about how Trump is headed for jail.

Actually, while this is echoed all over the internet by sites such as Godfatherpolitics, it appears that they have ejaculated prematurely.

And now they’ve won the case (which is Texas v. United States, No. 7:15-cv-151, for those playing at home).

No, they have not won the case. Not yet.

Five States Win Massive $839 Million Judgment Against Disastrous Obamacare

No, they have no such judgment. Not yet.

O’Connor ordered the federal government to pay Texas the $305 million that the Lone Star State had paid in HIPF fees, as well as the fees of the other states, for a total of $839 million.

No, Judge O'Connor did not. Not yet.

On 21 August 2018, Judge O'Connor issued Doc 100 in the case, the Court's ORDER on Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment and to Recondiser the Court's Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims for Refunds and Other Rulings (ECF No. 95), filed May 21, 2018; Defendants’ Response (ECF No. 98), filed June 11, 2018; and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 99), filed June 25, 2018.

That is an ORDER ruling on a MOTION, and not a Final Judgment of the case.

Doc 100 at 4:

Because the Court has not yet entered final judgment in this case, the Court’s August 4, 2016 Order dismissing Count VII, and its March 5, 2018 Order rendering summary judgment on all other counts, are both interlocutory. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). Plaintiffs’ instant motion moves the Court to: (1) reconsider its March 5, 2018 finding that the HIPF is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”); (2) reconsider its March 5, 2018 Order declaring the Certification Rule unlawful but not disgorging Plaintiffs’ past HIPF payments; (3) reconsider its August 4, 2016 dismissal of the Tax Refund claim in Count VII; and (4) enter a final judgment that includes a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from “impos[ing] liability for the [HIPF] upon Plaintiffs and their agencies.” See Pls.’ Mot. Recons., ECF No. 95; Prop. Final J., ECF No. 95-1. The Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b).

The cited Court Order of August 4, 2016 (two years ago) is Document 34 in the case,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In summary, Defendants' Motion is: (1) DENIED as to Count One; (2) DENIED as to Count Two; (3) DENIED as to Count Three; (4) DENIED as to Count Four; (5) DEFERRED in part and DENIED in part as to Count Five; (6) DENIED as to Count Six; (7) GRANTED as to Count Seven; (8) DENIED as to Count Eight; (9) DENIED as to Count Nine; and (10) GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to Count Ten. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 8/4/2016) (baa) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

That Opinion and Order ruled in favor of the Federal government on the matter of the funds, apparently correctly, but on highly technical grounds. The case continued and more recently with Doc 100 the judge found for disgorgement of the funds by the Federal government to the States, based on a different argument not requiring specific relief. The Federal government had won... and then they did not. A final judgment had not been entered, and has still not been entered. The States appear to be winning, but until there is a final judgment, orgasmic claims of having won an order from the court to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars is somewhat premature.

Doc 100 at 17:

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and entry of judgment (ECF No. 95). The Court will issue a separate final judgment order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

SO ORDERED on this 21st day of August, 2018.

/s/ Reed O'Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Of course, the Docket of the case does not end at entry #100. Doc #101 is:

MOTION to Stay Issuance of Final Judgment filed by David J Kautter, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Internal Revenue Service, United States of America, Don J. Wright, M.D. with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bennett − DOJ, Michelle) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

It ain't over till it's over. Things are looking good, but it ain't over.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/387089417/State-of-Texas-v-United-States-TXND-7-15-cv-151-O-DOCKET-REPORT

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/387089518/State-of-Texas-v-United-States-TXND-7-15-cv-151-O-21-Aug-2018-Doc-100-OrDER-Ptf-Mot-to-Reconsider-Granted-in-Part-Denied-in-Part

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2018-08-26   18:36:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nolu chan (#1)

it appears that they have ejaculated prematurely.

I just found this maybe it helps explain what is going on.

Trump's Team Asks Court to Let ACA Underwriting Rules Die in 2019

Trump's DOJ says the court handling the Texas v. USA case should leave the rest of the ACA in place.

By Allison Bell | June 08, 2018 at 04:13 PM

President Donald Trump’s legal team has made a move that could kill a key part of the Affordable Care Act, disrupt the individual major medical market in 2019, and leave most of the ACA intact.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers launched that attack on part of the ACA Wednesday, by asking a federal court in Texas to let the governments of Texas and other states that oppose the ACA win part of a suit they have filed — but only part of their suit.

Texas and its allies have asked the court, in Texas et al. v. USA et al. (Case Number: 4:18-cv-00167-O) to grant a preliminary injunction that would nullify the ACA individual mandate.

Texas and its allies want the court to then use the nullification of the individual mandate to kill the ACA as a whole, based on the proposition that killing any part of the ACA will kill all of the ACA.

The Justice Department lawyers representing Trump’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Trump’s Internal Revenue Services have asked the court to narrow the scope of the suit, and then to grant a ruling in favor of Texas and its allies on the narrower version of the suit.

The Justice Department wants the Texas court to hold that the ACA individual mandate is essential to the ACA “community rating” system, or medical underwriting restrictions. Those are the ACA rules that keep health plans from considering personal health factors other than age and tobacco use when deciding whether to sell people coverage, or what premiums to charge.

If the court takes that action, “the ACA’s provisions containing the individual mandate as well as the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements will all be invalid beginning on Jan. 1, 2019,” the department lawyers write in a memorandum addressed to the court.

In that scenario, other ACA provisions would stay in place.

The ACA Individual Mandate

The ACA is a package made up of two separate laws: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA).

Parts of the package created the ACA public exchange system and set underwriting and benefits rules for health coverage. Other parts established rules for major medical plan benefits summaries, provided funding for geriatric care provider education programs, and moved to lower out-of-pocket costs for people who have Medicare Part D prescription drug plan coverage and high prescription bills.

The ACA individual major medical insurance mandate provision originally required people who failed to get covered to pay a penalty.

ACA opponents argued even before the legislation creating the ACA was drafted that a mandate would be the equivalent of Congress requiring people who hate broccoli to buy broccoli.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that opponents of the ACA individual coverage mandate could not win a preliminary injunction blocking the mandate, because the ACA individual mandate was a tax, and a federal law prohibits parties from seeking preliminary injunctions to block new federal taxes.

How the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act May Have Changed Things

In December, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The TCJA sets the ACA individual mandate penalty for 2019 and later years at zero.

Texas and other states that oppose the ACA have responded by filing a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The states argue that, because the TCJA has eliminated the individual mandate penalty, the ACA individual mandate is no longer a tax law.

If the mandate provision is no longer a tax provision, the 2012 Supreme Court ruling should no longer protect the individual mandate provision from legal challenges, the states say.

The states want the court to declare the mandate to be unconstitutional.

Because the ACA contains no severability clause protecting the rest of the law from the effects of the nullification of part of the law, a ruling killing the individual mandate should kill the rest of the ACA, the states say.

Intervenors

The Texas district court judge, Judge Reed O’Connor, still has to rule on the request Texas and Texas’ allies have made for the preliminary injunction.

O’Connor has said that, once he has issued his ruling, the parties will have 30 days to respond.

One wrinkle that could keep the case alive, even if the states that oppose the ACA and the Trump administration want to resolve the case in favor of Texas and its allies, is that California, New York and other states that support the ACA have asked to intervene.

O’Connor issued an order on May 16 that grants California and other states that support the ACA official intervenor status. O’Connor has told those states they can submit pleadings to the court along with the other parties.

Health Insurers React

Analysts at Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service have said that large health insurers’ remaining individual major medical operations look stable right now, but that uncertainty about ACA rules and subsidies could cause problems in the future.

Health insurers are trying to lock in individual and small-group major medical policy language, benefits and rates for 2019 now.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade group for health insurers, today put out a statement arguing that eliminating the current underwriting rules for 2019 would lead to major disruption in the individual major medical market.

“Initial filings for 2019 plans have shown that, while rates are higher due to the zeroing out of the individual mandate penalty, the market is more steady for most consumers than in previous years, with insurance providers stepping in to serve more consumers in more states,” AHIP says in the statement.

“We agree with the [Trump] administration that a preliminary injunction should not be granted to the plaintiffs. We also agree that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) provisions affecting Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D should remain law. However, we believe that a declaratory judgment would have the same destabilizing effect as a preliminary injunction, and therefore should not be granted.

“Zeroing out the individual mandate penalty should not result in striking important consumer protections, such as guaranteed issue and community rating rules that help those with pre-existing conditions. Removing those provisions will result in renewed uncertainty in the individual market, create a patchwork of requirements in the states, cause rates to go even higher for older Americans and sicker patients, and make it challenging to introduce products and rates for 2019. Instead, we should focus on advancing proven solutions that ensure affordability for all consumers.

“Final resolution of this case will take time, given that the litigation is in its preliminary stages at the district court, and any ruling will be subject to appeal. AHIP will file an amicus brief that opposes the state plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief, and provides more detail about the harm that would come to millions of Americans if the request to invalidate the ACA is granted in whole or in part.”

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!

CZ82  posted on  2018-08-27   9:29:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: CZ82 (#2)

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/06/08/trumps-team-asks-court-to-let-aca-underwriting-res/?slreturn=20180727115834

Trump's DOJ says the court handling the Texas v. USA case should leave the rest of the ACA in place.

By Allison Bell | June 08, 2018 at 04:13 PM

[excerpt]

Texas and its allies have asked the court, in Texas et al. v. USA et al. (Case Number: 4:18-cv-00167-O) to grant a preliminary injunction that would nullify the ACA individual mandate.

That refers to a totally different 2018 lawsuit in the same court.

The 2015 case under discussion in the thread is 7:15-cv-00151-O.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-08-27   12:08:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com