Obamacare funding ruled unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that the mechanism for subsidizing insurance companies under Obamacare violates the Constitution.  That document reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” (Article 1.  Section 9).  The Obama administration has been paying that money without Congress having passed an appropriation to do so.  The ruling is on hold, pending appeal.

From Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally – LA Times:

House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of  Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.

The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

The Constitution says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” Collyer noted, but the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing health coverage.

“Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” she wrote. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.” . . .

The healthcare law says insurers who enroll eligible, low-income Americans shall cover the costs of their deductibles and co-payments, but promises the federal government “shall make periodic and timely payments” to cover those costs.

The law is not entirely clear on where this money will come from, however.

At first, the administration asked Congress for an appropriation to cover these costs.

But when that request went nowhere in Congress, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services said they could continue to pay these required reimbursements.

They said payments were like “other appropriate entitlements like Medicaid” that are covered by permanent federal funds and not subject to an annual appropriation.

Judge Collyer called that claim a “most curious and convoluted argument whose mother was undoubtedly necessity.”

[Keep reading. . .]