10th Circuit to Little Sisters of the Poor: Comply with contraception mandate

Guess which ObamaCare case will be headed to the Supreme Court next? At least, that’s the option open for the Little Sisters of the Poor and their defense team at The Becket Fund for the restoration of a temporary injunction against compliance with the HHS mandate. The 10th Circuit handed the nuns a defeat this morning, vacating the earlier temporary injunction ordered by a lower court:

Moments ago, in a departure from the U.S. Supreme Court’s protection of the Little Sisters of the Poorlast year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Little Sisters must comply with the government’s HHS mandate. This mandate forces religious ministries to violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties …

The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument in this case December of last year, when for the first time since the case began, Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor, delivered a public statement on the case (see statement here). 

Today the Tenth Circuit ruled that government can force the Little Sisters to either violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties. The court held that participating in the government’s contraception delivery scheme is “as easy as obtaining a parade permit, filing a simple tax for, or registering to vote” and that although the Sisters sincerely believe that participating in the scheme “make[s] them complicit in the overall delivery scheme,” the court “ultimately rejects the merits of this claim,” because the court believes the scheme relieves [the Little Sisters] from complicity.”

The Little Sisters and their attorneys are closely reviewing the court’s decision and will decide soon whether they must seek relief from the Supreme Court.

“We will keep on fighting for the Little Sisters, even if that means having to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Daniel Blomberg, Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The Court’s order similarly harms Christian Brothers Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, the Catholic ministries through which the Little Sisters obtain their health coverage.

This means that the Little Sisters of the Poor will be forced to comply with the mandate or face ruinous penalties, even while appealing their denial of religious exemption by HHS. The idea that Catholic nuns are somehow required to provide contraception through their insurer to their employees — who had to know that Catholic nuns would be the last group one would ask for contraception — demonstrates just how ridiculous this mandate is.

The decision, which is very lengthy, was unanimous on the issues for the LSP nuns. The sole dissent in part addresses the way this decision broadly addresses the impact on self-insuring non-profits:

Today the Court holds, among other things, that the ACA contraceptive Mandate’s accommodation scheme does not substantially burden religious non-profits that object to facilitating contraceptive or abortifacient coverage because opting out does not cause, authorize, or otherwise facilitate such coverage.1 The Court’s opinion provides perhaps the most thorough explanation of the accommodation scheme’s nuanced mechanics that I have yet read. And for argument’s sake, I follow its holding as to the insured plaintiffs’ and Little Sisters plaintiffs’ RFRA claims.2 But I cannot join the Court’s holding as to the other self-insured plaintiffs’ RFRA claims, as that holding contradicts the Court’s own reasoning and thorough explanation of the accommodation scheme.

In reality, the accommodation scheme forces the self-insured plaintiffs to perform an act that causes their beneficiaries to receive religiously objected-to coverage. The fines the government uses to compel this act thus impose a substantial burden on the selfinsured plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Moreover, less restrictive means exist to achieve the government’s contraceptive coverage goals here. I must therefore dissent in part.

The difference demonstrates a well-known weakness in the LSP case, which is how their insurance was structured. The LSP organization has less direct control over its insurance thanks to its use of a kind of co-op, and that was apparently enough for the 10th Circuit to rule that compliance with the HHS accommodation does not actually facilitate the use of contraceptives. Politically, this case is embarrassing for the Obama administration, but HHS has a somewhat stronger case here than with other religious organizations.

The Becket Fund had success in getting the Supreme Court to order a temporary injunction for LSP under the previous accommodation. It appears that they’ll have to try that path again to keep the nuns on the job providing hospice care as part of their exercise of religious liberty.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading....

Obamacare’s Enrollment Increase: Mainly Due to Medicaid Expansion

Abstract

Health insurance enrollment data show that the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage increased by a bit less than 2.5 million in the first half of 2014. While enrollment in individual market coverage grew by almost 6.3 million, 61 percent of that gain was offset by a reduction of nearly 3.8 million individuals with employer-sponsored coverage. During the same period, Medicaid enrollment increased by almost 6.1 million—principally as a result of Obamacare expanding eligibility to able-bodied, working-age adults. Consequently, 71 percent of the combined increase in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014 was attributable to 25 states and the District of Columbia adopting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

W‌ith enrollment data now available for the second quarter ‌of 2014, it is possible to construct a complete picture of the changes in health insurance coverage that occurred during the initial implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as Obamacare. The data show that in the first half of 2014, private health insurance enrollment increased by a net of 2,465,586 individuals. That net figure reflects the fact that 61 percent of the gain in individual coverage was offset by a drop in employer group coverage. During the same period, Medicaid enrollment grew by 6,072,651 individuals. Thus, while a total of 8.5 million individuals gained coverage, 71 percent of that net coverage gain was attributable to the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults.

 

Changes in Private Coverage Enrollment

Health insurers file quarterly reports with state regulators, and data from those reports for the second quarter of 2014 are now available.[1] The three relevant market subsets for this analysis are (1) the individual market, (2) the fully insured employer-group market, and the (3) self-insured employer-group market.[2] Table 1 shows the changes in private health insurance enrollment during the first and second quarters of 2014, along with the net changes for the combined six-month period.

Obamacare’s initial open enrollment period began on October 1, 2013, and officially ended on March 31, 2014—though in a number of states it was extended into April to give those who had experienced problems enrolling additional time to complete the process. Because enrollment was for the 2014 plan year, the coverage for those who enrolled during the fourth quarter of 2013 took effect in the new year; thus, those individuals are included in the data for the first quarter (Q1) of 2014. The data for Q2 2014 captures enrollments that occurred during the last two months of the open enrollment period, or which were otherwise delayed due to the numerous problems experienced by the exchanges, and so did not take effect until after the end of the first quarter.

The data show that enrollment in individual market coverage increased by over 2.7 million individuals in Q1 2014 and by a further 3.5 million individuals in Q2. Thus, for the first half of 2014, enrollment in individual market coverage grew by almost 6.3 million individuals.

The second-biggest coverage change that occurred during the first half of 2014 was the decline in the number of individuals with coverage through fully insured employer group plans. Enrollment in such plans dropped by 3.8 million individuals in Q1 2014, and by nearly a million more individuals in Q2 2014. Thus, for the first half of 2014, the number of individuals with coverage through a fully insured employer group plan decreased by nearly 4.8 million.

Enrollment in self-insured employer plans modestly increased in both quarters—by 347,000 in Q1 2014, and by about 652,000 in Q2—for a net enrollment gain of a little less than one million during the first half of 2014. Consequently, the combined enrollment changes in the two segments of the employer group market during the first half of 2014 produced a net decrease of almost 3.8 million in the number of Americans covered by employer-sponsored plans.

That net reduction in employer-sponsored group coverage is explained by employers discontinuing coverage for some or all of their workers or, in some cases, individuals losing access to such coverage due to employment changes. While it is not possible to determine from the data the subsequent coverage status of individuals who lost group coverage, there are only four possibilities: (1) some obtained replacement individual-market coverage (either on or off the exchanges); (2) some enrolled in Medicaid; (3) some enrolled in other coverage for which they are eligible (such as a plan offered by their new employer, a spouse’s plan, a parent’s policy, or Medicare); and (4) some became uninsured.

 

If individuals lost group coverage, but obtained new coverage under either another employer group plan or one in the individual market, they would then be counted in the enrollment figures for those submarkets. Similarly, if individuals transitioned to Medicaid, they would be counted in the Medicaid enrollment figures reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Via: Heritage

Continue Reading....

Washington’s Obamacare Exchange Is Losing A Top Insurer In 2016

A top insurer is dropping from Washington, D.C.’s Obamacare exchange in 2016, leaving customers with fewer options than ever in the nation’s capital.

Aetna Life Insurance will no longer offer individual plans on D.C. Health Link, Washington’s own Obamacare exchange, in 2016, The Washington Post reports. Aetna is sending letters to customers notifying them that their plans will be canceled at the end of this year. The company says it has “determined we can no longer meet the needs of our customers while remaining competitive in the market.”

That will leave just one company on the exchange, CareFirst, that provides Preferred Provider Organization plans, or PPOs, which offer a wider choice of approved doctors and hospitals to customers. Just two other companies currently offer health maintenance organizations, HMOs, on the exchange.

That will leave customers looking for greater choice in their health care options with just one insurance company, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, which is drastically hiking premium rates across the region.

CareFirst has already proposed rate increases from 3 percent to 17 percent, according to the Post. In nearby Maryland, CareFirst has requested that state regulators allow it to hike rates by up to 30.4 percent in 2016, The Baltimore Sun reports.

DC Health Link’s director, Mila Kofman, told The Post that the shrinking number of options isn’t a loss for the competitiveness of the exchange and that Aetna’s decision to leave the exchange won’t harm residents.

“When you have products when there’s not a whole lot of interest to buy, that’s the market telling the carrier what they are selling, people can’t afford. So in terms of competition, it’s not a loss,” Kofman said. “I don’t consider that real competition.”

Aetna will continue to offer employer-provided plans on the exchange — including for Congress and its staff. Federal employees make a large part of Washington’s Obamacare customers, as they are required by the health care law itself to purchase coverage on the exchange.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

On Health Care, Obama worked the Refs and Got His Way

Former Lakers coach Phil Jackson says he finds referees “a very interesting group of people.”

If you’re a basketball fan, you’ll remember that Jackson has used plainer words about referees, and this has cost him a lot of money over the years. During the 2009 NBA Finals he was fined $25,000 for complaining about “bogus” calls. The following year he was fined $35,000 twice in two weeks.

Why did he complain so publicly?

Jackson may have hinted at the answer in a recent video for a youth sports organization. “It’s an impossible game to referee,” he said. “It’s totally impossible. There’s a foul on every play. You have to decide what you’re going to call and what you’re not going to call, who you’re going to attack and who you’re not going to attack.”

So those costly criticisms may have been an investment in helping the officials make better decisions in the future.

The president of the United States happens to be a basketball fan. Maybe he’s seen this trick work a few times.

Speaking in Germany after the G7 summit on June 8, President Obama lectured the U.S. Supreme Court on how to interpret the Affordable Care Act. “It should be an easy case,” he said, “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

The next day the president spoke again about the law, describing a pre-Obamacare America where parents who didn’t have money could only “beg for God’s mercy” to save their child’s life. But thanks to the health care law, he said, a woman has thrown away her wheelchair, an autistic boy now can speak, a barber was cured of cancer. The president said miracles are happening in hospitals every day. “This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another,” he concluded. “This is health care in America.”

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the administration’s interpretation of the health care law, which Chief Justice John Roberts said was necessary to avoid “a calamitous result.” Who would want to be blamed for preventing “miracles”?

Although the justices are insulated from politics by lifetime appointments, they strive to maintain the public’s respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. They can’t put their orders into effect without the aid of elected officials. The judiciary has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers.

It’s this vulnerability—the Supreme Court’s reliance on the esteem of the public—that Obama attacked in 2010 during his nationally televised State of the Union address. The president slammed the justices, some of whom were seated right in front of him, for their ruling in a campaign finance case.

Longtime political experts were startled by the breach of protocol, but basketball fans would not have been.

With his remarks in Germany, Obama signaled that he was ready to denounce the Supreme Court, perhaps for decades, if the justices blew the whistle on the IRS rule that went around the literal wording of the Affordable Care Act. Sure enough, the call went his way.

Presidents have done this kind of thing before. Franklin Roosevelt famously threatened to pack the court with more justices in order to get the majority he needed to uphold the New Deal. But it was the other Roosevelt, Teddy, who best explained this Progressive technique.

“I may not know much about law,” TR thundered in 1912, “but I do know one can put the fear of God into judges.”

Phil Jackson would have been fined a million dollars for that remark.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading...

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DEFIES SUPREME COURT, ISSUES FINAL CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE RULE

Despite repeatedly losing its cases over the Obamacare contraceptive mandate at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Friday that it will continue to force religious organizations to distribute contraceptives – including the “week-after pill” – to their employees.

As a news release at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty states, the Obama administration has been handed “multiple losses in contraceptive mandate cases at the Supreme Court,” including the Hobby Lobby decision, and cases involving the Little Sisters of the Poor and Wheaton College.

Last week, the Supreme Court ordered the Obama administration not to enforce the contraceptive mandate against Catholic organizations from Pennsylvania, making this case the government’s sixth loss in a row at the Supreme Court. Currently, four petitionsare before the Supreme Court asking for final resolution of the issue by June 2016.

“The government keeps digging the hole deeper,” said Adèle Auxier Keim, legal counsel at the Becket Fund. “Just last week the Supreme Court ordered HHS not to enforce the exact rules they finalized today. But the government still won’t give up on its quest to force nuns and other religious employers to distribute contraceptives.”

“Especially after the Supreme Court’s recent King v. Burwell decision allowed the government to expand its healthcare exchanges, there is no reason at all the government needs religious employers to help it distribute these products,” she added.

As Keim observes, the Obama administration has already told thousands of businesses they need not comply with the HHS mandate at all.

“So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself?” she asks.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Obamacare’s Bill Is Due

N

ow that the Supreme Court has once again saved Obamacare, can we have an honest talk about it?

Let me explain. On one side—you don’t need me to spell out which—the Affordable Care Act was demonized. It was going to bankrupt the health care system; destroy the United States’ reputation for excellent service; steal you away from your doctor; and, by some means never quite explained, lead us straight to communism. Today, subsidized health care premiums and an end to pre-existing condition exclusions; tomorrow, Stalin and FEMA detention camps located in semisecret parts of Texas. You know how it goes.

Under this assault, all too many ACA defenders turned into fanboys and fangirls, dismissing any issue raised against the law as inconsequential and exaggerated. And besides, it’s not like legislation to improve any aspect of it would get through our paralyzed, polarized, and now Republican-run Congress anyway.

But this strategy might well come back to bite the Democrats. The bill for the health care expansion is coming due, just as the recipients will be heading to the ballot box to vote in the first primaries for the 2016 election. More than a few are likely to be annoyed. 

Last week Oregon’s insurance commissioner, Laura Cali, announced that the state had approved a 25 percent premium increase for the largest health insurer on the state’s exchanges. The second largest insurer did even better: It received permission to boost its monthly charge to consumers by 33 percent.

Oregon might be the first health insurance exchange equivalent of a penguin getting shoved off an ice floe, but it won’t be alone in the freezing-cold waters for long. For example, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee requested an average 36 percent price increase for the plans it offers—after receiving a 19 percent bump last year. And that sounds like a relative bargain compared with Minnesota and New Mexico, where the BlueCross BlueShield family is looking for increases of more than 50 percent. Even if the final numbers are lower than the asks, it seems quite likely these states will approve substantive premium increases.

The problem is simple. As Trudy Lieberman reported this month in Harper’s, the ACA made a decent stab at solving the problem of Americans lacking insurance. Unfortunately, the bargain struck to get the bill to a point where lobbyists for the hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to sign on, or at least not fight it, did not adequately address the issue of overall medical costs.

And that’s where the consumer comes in. Someone is “it,” the party paying the bill. And that “it” is increasingly you, whether you receive insurance on the exchanges or from an employer.

Via: Slate

Continue Reading....

Obama’s Nominee to Head Medicare, Medicaid Agency Faces Questions of Cronyism

An Obama administration official who faces questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest due to his work in the medical services field has been nominated to serve as head of the agency tasked with overseeing Obamacare.

The White House announced yesterday Andy Slavitt’s nomination to permanently head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Slavitt began working as the agency’s acting administrator after Marilyn Tavenner resigned in January.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees Obamacare and the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov. Slavitt joined the Obama administration in June 2014 as principal deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

His appointment to the post was met with skepticism from Republicans in the House and Senate, as Slavitt worked as group vice president of OptumInsight/QSSI, a technology company, before taking the No. 2 post at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Department of Health and Human Services awarded Maryland-based OptumInsight/QSSI with a contract to build the federal data hub, part of HealthCare.gov, in January 2012.

Then, following the federal exchange’s disastrous launch in October 2013, OptumInsight/QSSI was tasked with fixing the broken website and continued to serve as a “senior adviser” on the project.

>>> Company That ‘Saved’ HealthCare.gov Faces Questions of Cronyism

OptumInsight/QSSI is the sister company of UnitedHealthcare, a health insurance provider that offers plans on both the federal and state-run exchanges. Both companies are subsidiaries of UnitedHealth Group.

Typically, government officials who leave the private sector for jobs in the administration must wait at least one year before working with their previous employer. However, Slavitt received an ethics waiver from the White House last year, which allowed him to begin working on matters involving OptumInsight/QSSI, his former company.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

Feds Delay Obamacare Menu Labeling Rule By a Year

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Obamacare. Bookmark the permalink.

SHARE

TWEET

EMAIL

Where are calorie counts on menus?

KIRO - Seattle

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is delaying an Obamacare regulation requiring restaurants to display calorie information until December 2016 after businesses complained they did not have sufficient time to comply with the complex rules.

The FDA’s rule, which is the latest Obamacare regulation to be delayed, went into detail on whether pumpkin spice muffins should be labeled, but remained vague as to what the definition of a menu is, was set to take effect on Dec. 1.

“The Food and Drug Administration … is extending the compliance date for the final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments,” the agency said in a notice to be published in the Federal Register on Friday.

“We are taking this action in response to requests for an extension and for further clarification of the rule’s requirements,” the FDA said.

The 319-page regulation, mandated by Obamacare, is estimated to cost industry $1.7 billion to comply. The rule requires restaurant chains with 20 or more stores to list calorie information for nearly every food item, and a “succinct statement” that “2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice, but calorie needs vary,” on each menu board.

Vending machines must also display calorie information, though that part of the regulation was already set to take effect in December 2016.

Violations of the regulation can carry civil and criminal penalties, of up to a $1,000 fine, one year in prison, or both.

Domino’s, a leading critic of the rule claimed that it is “impossible to comply” with its requirements, said the delay is not enough to fix the regulation.

“FDA’s delay confirms both the serious deficiencies in the final rules and the urgent need for enactment of the bipartisan Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act (H.R. 2017),” said Lynn Liddle, executive vice president of Domino’s and chair of the American Pizza Community, in a statement. “Unfortunately, FDA proceeded with an approach to final rules that impose significant compliance costs without achieving any meaningful improvements in consumer education.”

“After years of uncertainty, FDA still has not addressed basic questions regarding implementation,” she said.

The proposed legislation, sponsored by House Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), would give businesses greater flexibility in how to display calorie information. The bill would allow companies where the majority of their orders are carryout and delivery, such as pizza chains, to display the information online.

The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act also clarifies that an advertisement, coupon, flyer, window display, or post on social media is not a menu, which the regulation implied. The rule defined a menu as anything “used by a customer to make an order selection at the time the customer is viewing the writing.”

“The FDA’s self-admission that these regulations are unclear, unpractical, and unworkable is welcome, but a one-year delay doesn’t change the underlying problem on the books—a one-size-fits-all, 400-page regulation that is nearly impossible to follow,” Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers told the Washington Free Beacon. “Providing consumers accurate, clear, consistent nutritional information is everyone’s priority, but it doesn’t have to come at the expense of commonsense.”

The FDA said they received “numerous requests asking us to further interpret portions of the final rule” since it was finalized last year. Businesses asked for more time due to the need to change all of their menus, and train staff.

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration appreciates and takes very seriously the extensive input it has received from stakeholders throughout the process of establishing requirements for menu labeling in restaurants and other retail food establishments,” FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine Michael R. Taylor said. “The FDA is committed to working collaboratively with those establishments covered by the menu labeling final rule, including chain restaurants, covered grocery stores, and others to facilitate timely and efficient implementation of the new requirements.”

The FDA is still planning to issue a “draft guidance document” to businesses further clarifying the rules and will “provide educational and technical assistance for the covered businesses and for our state, local, and tribal regulatory partners to support reasonable and consistent compliance nationwide.”

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

Another Reason for the Rise of Trump

Politico has another reason why Donald Trump is doing so well. The GOP is structuring a plan on Obamacare to do an end run around Senate Conservatives while making it look like they’ve done something on Obamacare.

Follow along with me.

According to Jennifer Haberkorn and Rachael Bade, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) 45% says, ““I think we need to find some way to arrive at something like a Ryan-Murray II and if that’s one of the mechanisms that gets us there, I’m all for it.”

Remember, the Ryan-Murray plan was a tax increase that conservatives opposed. Cole and others, at the time, relentlessly attacked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%, Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) 95%,Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) 100%, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) 91% and others to their opposition. We know that is where the GOP is headed because Cole also said, “I would prefer that [spending deal] to a dead-on-arrival repeal of Obamacare.” Got that? He wants something President Obama will sign.

That means it won’t do anything to undermine Obamacare because the President won’t let them undermine Obamacare. But, it gets better.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) 69% gives us this gem:

“My view is there will be some effort here to be sure that members who voted for the budget with the reconciliation capability in the budget feel like its used in the way that they expected that to be used,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the Republican leadership.

So they’re going to legislate by feeling?! WTF?! They’re going to not repeal Obamacare, not cut Obamacare, not reform Obamacare, and not undermine Obamacare, but they are going to try to convince members of congress that they are doing something so they feel good about it.

A middle school class of kids in high water pants would be more competent at legislating than this crowd.

We all know Trump is probably going to fade over time. But as long as the Washington Republicans are playing games with their own side, Trump’s power continues as a giant “F” and “U” directed toward Washington.

There are very few other people on the campaign who can pivot on this issue and take ground from Trump. They happen to be named Cruz, Paul, and Rubio. The Senate and House leadership is setting them up nicely if they’re game to try.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Subpoena threat issued for ObamaCare files

House Republicans are threatening to subpoena documents related to an ObamaCare program at the center of their lawsuit against President Obama.

The Republican chairmen of the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees on Wednesday released a letter to the administration reiterating a request made in February for documents related to the program. 

Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.) set a deadline of July 21 for a response. If the administration does not provide the documents by then, a subpoena will be considered, they said.

“If HHS fails to produce the documents and information, the committees will have no choice but to consider the use of the compulsory process to obtain them,” the letter states.

Ryan and Upton first asked for the documents in February. The letter reiterating the request was sent to Health Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

House Republicans argue that the administration is unconstitutionally spending money on an ObamaCare program despite Congress declining to appropriate money for it. That allegation is at the center of House Republicans’ lawsuit, which is being heard by a federal court in the case House v. Burwell

The funds in question are for “cost-sharing reductions” that help insurers lower out-of-pocket costs for low-income people.

House Republicans are seeking documents related to the administration’s decision to make payments through the program despite the absence of an appropriation. 

In court filings, the administration has laid out the case that it did not need an appropriation for the funds because they are mandatory spending not subject to the appropriations process. 

Republicans counter the administration requested an appropriation for the program in 2013, which was turned down. But the administration says it later realized the request was unnecessary because it had the funds through mandatory spending. 

Obama administration officials also say Congress never took action to block the funds and even passed a bill, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, that was predicated on the idea that the funds were available.

“Thus, although the House seeks to focus on the Administration’s initial budget request for FY2014, the end result of the budget process for that year confirms a shared understanding that these payments could be made,” the administration wrote in a court filing last week.

The administration has asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, saying Congress does not have legal standing to sue the president.

But Judge Rosemary Collyer leveled tough questions at the Department of Justice lawyer during arguments on the question in May.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....