November 27, 2021

2 thoughts on “States, Hospitals Urge DC Circ. To Allow ACA Subsidies

  1. I find it disconcerting that some have no more respect for rule of law and separation of powers that they would try to persuade the courts to “re-write” a law by pretending it means (or assuming it was an oversight) something other than what is says; assuming that it really means all exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Although disheartening, this is not unexpected from those that feed at the government trough.

    The law is clear and the court should make it clear that it is not their role to add to or subtract from existing legislation to make it fit an agenda. They should uphold the original language as if it means what it says, then kick it back to the congress to grapple with. The law can be amended by the congress if that is the will of the people’s house. But we all know that progressives don’t care about rule of law or constitution when it gets in the way of advancing their agenda.

    The deep roots of the moral hazard that is driving this are obvious. Our entire healthcare financing system depends on a complex layer of third-party reimbursements because the billing cycle is hinged to it. Furthermore, in the case of many hospitals their dependence on revenue from claims submitted to government payers is do or die. The way the financing system works, it guarantees mutually assured economic destruction if the payer contracts aren’t valid. Who gets left out of this mess? The patient that needs care. They have become an inconvenient pawn required to submit a claim

    Money should follow people. If tax subsidies and tax credits are assigned to individuals rather than “insurance” policies, then we wouldn’t be in this mess. We wouldn’t have to lobby the feds for “our fair share” of the pie. Crony “CRAPITALISM”, to quote Dr. Keith Smith, at it’s best. What a mess. An avoidable mess!

  2. Reblogged this on THE SOVEREIGN PATIENT and commented:
    I find it disconcerting that some have no more respect for rule of law and separation of powers that they would try to persuade the courts to “re-write” a law by pretending it means (or assuming it was an oversight) something other than what is says; assuming that it really means all exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Although disheartening, this is not unexpected from those that feed at the government trough.

    The law is clear and the court should make it clear that it is not their role to add to or subtract from existing legislation to make it fit an agenda. They should uphold the original language as if it means what it says, then kick it back to the congress to grapple with. The law can be amended by the congress if that is the will of the people’s house. But we all know that progressives don’t care about rule of law or constitution when it gets in the way of advancing their agenda.

    The deep roots of the moral hazard that is driving this are obvious. Our entire healthcare financing system depends on a complex layer of third-party reimbursements because the billing cycle is hinged to it. Furthermore, in the case of many hospitals their dependence on revenue from claims submitted to government payers is do or die. The way the financing system works, it guarantees mutually assured economic destruction if the payer contracts aren’t valid. Who gets left out of this mess? The patient that needs care. They have become an inconvenient pawn required to submit a claim

    Money should follow people. If tax subsidies and tax credits are assigned to individuals rather than “insurance” policies, then we wouldn’t be in this mess. We wouldn’t have to lobby the feds for “our fair share” of the pie. Crony “CRAPITALISM”, to quote Dr. Keith Smith, at it’s best. What a mess. An avoidable mess!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.