WhatFinger

Circumventing Congress's ban on the use of federal money to bail out ObamaCare casualties.

Great: Obama encouraging health insurers to sue federal government, then offering fat settlements

By Dan Calabrese ——--April 18, 2016

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

I'm sure you're all quite familiar with the Obama Administration's proclivity for ignoring Congress and doing whatever it wants, whether that means refusing to enforce the law or attempting to shove gun control down the nation's throat. But if you think Obama only does this via executive orders, you haven't quite grasped the full scope of his lawlessness. Let's say you want to spend money to bail out health insurers that you have driven to the brink of ruin by passing ObamaCare. But Congress (thanks in large part to an effort by Marco Rubio, by the way) will not allocate money for you to do so. You can't spend the money, right? Ha! When you're Barack Obama, you do whatever you want. But where do you get the money?
Well this is where you have to get really creative. You can't find money for a bailout per se, but gosh, what if that health insurer were to sue the federal government, and instead of defending against the lawsuit as you're supposed to do, you simply offer a nice fat settlement? There is money allocated by Congress to pay for lawsuit judgments and settlements. And voila, you've found a way to bail out health insurers without congressional approval:
According to legal experts, if the Obama administration decided to settle its class action lawsuit with Health Republic Insurance of Oregon, one of 23 co-ops started under Obamacare, and other insurers for all or part of the $5 billion it's seeking, the money would come from the Judgment Fund, an indefinite appropriation created by Congress and administered by the Department of Treasury. Health Republic Insurance of Oregon's lawsuit was filed on behalf of insurers participating in Obamacare's risk corridor program, and specifically those who did not receive the full amount of money requested through it. "In this case, the argument is the statute requires the government to pay out for the risk corridors, but Congress refused to appropriate the money to do that and therefore the court is going to have to award a judgment since the administration, under the direction of Congress, is violating the law," Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, told The Daily Signal of the lawsuit.
"And therefore the money has to come out of the Judgment Fund that the Court of Claims has to award a judgment against the federal government, which is appropriated money," he continued. The Obama administration's use of the Judgment Fund has come under fire in recent years, particularly after it was reported the Justice Department used the fund to pay billions to farmers who alleged discrimination by the Department of Agriculture, circumventing Congress. "The Obama administration has a history of using the Judgment Fund," Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. "They cannot be trusted to properly defend the lawsuit."
So their whole strategy is to be sued, and to make sure they don't win the case. That's what gives them access to the Judgment Fund so they can pay off the insurers. Not only does this represent yet another sneaky way around Congress and its power of the purse, but consider some of the other implications of their doing this. For one thing, when you a court renders a judgment against you in a lawsuit, it certainly implies, if not out-and-out declares, that you violated the plaintiff's legal rights. So Obama is copping to the idea that ObamaCare screws the health insurers in order to be able to pay them off.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
For another thing, legal cases often set legal precedents. If one company can sue the government and get a settlement, why can't another? Democrats love to impose mandates on businesses. What's to stop all kinds of other companies who lost money because of regulatory outreach or IRS harassment from suing the government and seeking a bailout as well? Why wouldn't the courts look at the precedent of the health insurer case and say, hey, you settled with those guys, settle with these guys too or we'll impose a judgment? Obama could be putting the taxpayers on the hook for massive future payoffs by intentionally losing legal judgments so he can get judges to order him to spend money Congress won't approve. Democrats love to use the courts to mandate outcomes they can't get through the legislative process. But in this case they're not even waiting for liberal judges to do their bidding for them. They encourage health insurers to sue them, then immediately offer settlements rather than bothering to defend themselves. I wonder how that would have gone over as a campaign promise: If you elect me, I'll let you sue me and I'll pay you fat settlements! Then again, as much as people want something for nothing these days, he might have won 50 states.
Subscribe

View Comments
Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored