| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Judge won't force Trump to keep making ObamaCare payments |
| 2017-10-27 |
| [The Hill] A federal court in California has struck down an emergency motion that would have forced the Trump administration to continue making ObamaCare subsidy payments to insurers. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion for an injunction, saying that he was skeptical that cutting off the payments known as cost-sharing reductions (CSR) would cause an immediate injury to residents of the state. He noted many states, including California, saw "the writing on the wall" and took actions to mitigate any potential harm if the payments were ended. "To be sure, the absence of money for CSR payments does not seem to be causing health care reform to come crumbling down," Chhabria wrote in his ruling. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #7 It seems to me that the main stream media were trying to goad Trump into defying the judgment of the courts that continuing payments to insurance companies that were not authorized by congress is unconstitutional I saw ABC news's reaction to Trump discontinuing the payments. It showed pictures of pathetic children who would presumably be deprived of medical care, and claimed that Trump was causing hardship to millions of innocents out of his meanness. Actually though, had he not discontinued these payments he would be violating the dictates of the constitution, and that would have justified impeachment proceedings against him. Obama had started the payments, which were obviously unconstitutional, but that is a judgment, and until the courts ruled that it was unconstitutional, it was not officially so. Obama could have acted out of stupidity or ignorance rather than willfully violating separation of powers. And it was similarly ok for Trump to continue the practice before the court ruling, that ruling made continuing the subsidies involved a clear violation of Trump's oath to obey the constitution, if he had done anything other than what he did. He accompanied his action by an attempt to get bipartisan support for congress action to authorize the subsidies, and that was the most he could legally do on their behalf. Was the massive media campaign against discontinuing the subsidies aimed at goading Trump to behave unconstitutionally? If he had continued the subsidies would they have demanded impeachment for that behavior? I would not put that past them. |
| Posted by: Daniel 2017-10-27 22:31 |
| #6 Housecleaning done, and so you've moved up a number, Guillibaldo Threremp2867. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2017-10-27 13:14 |
| #5 Housecleaning needed at #5. Housecleaning please. |
| Posted by: Guillibaldo Threremp2867 2017-10-27 10:14 |
| #4 Wow... sanity from a California judge. I better buy a lotto ticket. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2017-10-27 10:02 |
| #3 Couldn't get their case in front of that federal judge in Hawaii? |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2017-10-27 09:47 |
| #2 This has been a continuing left-wing boondoggle since the Lion of the Senate and Chappaquiddick, and Hillary and Obama. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2017-10-27 08:57 |
| #1 There is no constitutional basis for the payments. As Trump wisely did, he threw the ball back for appropriations to the legislative branch which is the constitutional source of revenue. Can't wait for the socialists to declare the Judiciary has the right and power to tax and spend. Not that there are too many in that branch who seek such powers on any excuse (its for the children[tm]). |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-10-27 08:00 |