Supreme Court rules insurers can collect $12 billion under health care law

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that insurance companies can collect $12 billion from the federal government to cover their losses in the early years of the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

Insurers are entitled to the money under a provision of the “Obamacare” health law that promised the companies a financial cushion for losses they might incur by selling coverage to people in the marketplaces created by the health care law, the justices said by an 8-1 vote.

The program only lasted three years, but Congress inserted a provision in the Health and Human Services Department’s spending bills from 2015 to 2017 to limit payments under the “risk corridors” program. Both the Obama and Trump administrations had argued that the provision means the government has no obligation to pay.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her opinion for the court that the congressional action was not sufficient to repeal the government’s commitment to pay. “These holdings reflect a principle as old as the

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/supreme-court-rules-insurers-can-collect-12-billion-under-health-care-law

Federal Judge Upholds a Trump Alternative to ‘Obamacare’

A federal judge is upholding the Trump administration’s expansion of cheaper short-term health insurance plans as an alternative to the Affordable Care Act’s costlier comprehensive insurance.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington, D.C., ruled Friday that the potential downside of expanding short-term plans is “minimal” and “benefits are undeniable” for some consumers. He found that the Trump administration had the legal authority to issue rules last year making the plans more attractive to customers.

Where available, the plans now are good for up to

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/july/federal-judge-upholds-a-trump-alternative-to-lsquo-obamacare-rsquo

Hospital decides not to remove oxygen from defiant patient

We were told, that the Obamacare death panels, were a thing of overactive imaginations.
Now it would seem that statement was a lie, and death panels are a fact of reality.

Cassie Cassidy, 64, is in Fairview Hospital in Edina, Minnesota, with lung cancer. "She is on oxygen, not on a ventilator – but she does require supplemental oxygen to stay comfortable and to sustain her life," says Alexandra Snyder of Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Cassidy's health care proxy informed her the hospital planned to remove the oxygen, which would have caused her death – a plan to which Cassidy objected.

Snyder reports there's now been a change of plans. "The hospital had a meeting with the health care proxy and we were informed that the hospital is now complying with the patient's wishes and she will remain on oxygen," says Snyder.

She adds that Life Legal Defense Foundation is prepared to re-enter case, if necessary, to protect Cassidy's life and obtain the hospital's compliance with state law.

---

Original story:

Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare

http://townhall.com/columnists/Chuck...1_in_obamacare


Oh now I see now how Obama is going to create more jobs through the invasion of your privacy and privileges as a parent.
And just what happens if you don't follow their teachings and preachings, will the consequences be the loss of your child?


Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?