‘Blatantly Illegal’- Supreme Court Delivers a Bombshell 9-0 Ruling

[Harpy Eagle]

And your Law degree is from?

Oh, and this is the ruling that SCOTUS overruled.

American Hospital Assn. v. Azar, 967 F. 3d 818, 824 (2020).

Do you know how "Azar" is?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2020?

or do you need a law degree know such things?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, no law degree. Thanks.

Why does one need a law degree to understand this...HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore unlawful. The text and structure of the statute make this a straightforward case. Because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals.

Which part of that is confusing for you?

Which of those words are too big for you to understand?

 

[WEATHER53]

i notice you didn’t read the link in the OP

It’s another revisionist round of “you read the words wrong”

 

[WEATHER53]

Why does one need a law degree to understand this...HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore unlawful. The text and structure of the statute make this a straightforward case. Because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals.

Which part of that is confusing for you?

Which of those words are too big for you to understand?

The fact words don’t compute feelings and wishes wise.

 

[Lastamender]

Why does one need a law degree to understand this...HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore unlawful. The text and structure of the statute make this a straightforward case. Because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals.

Which part of that is confusing for you?

Which of those words are too big for you to understand?

All I am saying is you do not have a law degree. True or false?

 

[WEATHER53]

All I am saying is you do not have a law degree. True or false?

It’s a wishful feeling and in suspension of reality land that is All that is needed. Safe space achieved.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

All I am saying is you do not have a law degree. True or false?

I am saying that a law degree is not necessary to understand this ruling.

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2018?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2019?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2020 when the lower court ruled on this case?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The fact words don’t compute feelings and wishes wise.

Are you drunk?

 

[Lastamender]

I am saying that a law degree is not necessary to understand this ruling.

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2018?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2019?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2020 when the lower court ruled on this case?

True or false, asshole?

 

[citygator]

The Trump sickness of his sycophants knows no boundaries. The whole purpose of this thread is to gaslight. Insane.

 

[Lastamender]

The Trump sickness of his sycophants knows no boundaries. The whole purpose of this thread is to gaslight. Insane.

Here is your cult.

Psychotherapist: The New Normal Is a “Dark and Hideous Creature Raising Its Head Out of the Muck of Human Shadow”

For something to be a “new” normal, it must reach some measure of consensual normalcy. What is normalcy? Many people

americafirstreport.com

The problem here, though, is this normalcy I am speaking of is being forced upon us not in a natural organic way.

The big fight that Social Democrats and Communists lost to the National Socialists (Nazis) in February and March was one in which the nation was bitterly divided. The prisoners who returned home at the end of 1933 took the measure of how quickly Germany had changed from a country of highly articulate partisans who flew flags and pinned on badges of allegiance into a country of believers and conformists who, for reasons that were not always clear or verifiable, had made their peace with the new regime. This was the Nazis’ achievement in the two short months between the Reichstag elections on March 5, 1933, and the day celebrating German labor on May 1. The “48 percent” who had not voted for Hitler almost entirely disappeared from view, its remnants treated as miscreants and “asocials,” agents of national and social corrosion, drowned rats in the sea.”

Sound familiar?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

True or false, asshole?

It is True, I do not.

Now, your turn to answer some questions...

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2018?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2019?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2020 when the lower court ruled on this case?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

True or false, asshole?

It is true, I do not.

Now, do you need a law degree to understand this...

HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore unlawful. The text and structure of the statute make this a straightforward case. Because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals.

Yes or no?

 

[struth]

You are correct, I did not need some lying website to tell me what to think. I went to the actual ruling from SCOTUS and read it for myself.

you should try this and then you would know that the policy that was ruled illegal started in 2018, you do know who was the POTUS in 2018, right?

The op-ed didn’t lie, it didnt say it wasn’t a trump era policy

 

[struth]

It is True, I do not.

Now, your turn to answer some questions...

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2018?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2019?

Do you know who was the POTUS in 2020 when the lower court ruled on this case?

i am not sure what that has to do with the opinion in the link in the OP

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The op-ed didn’t lie, it didnt say it wasn’t a trump era policy

First paragraph in the Op-Ed.....The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Democrat Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated drug reimbursement rules for low-income patients in a blistering decision that the media is largely ignoring.

The ruling was over actions taken in 2018 and 2019. While it is true they were not changed back, it was not the Biden Admin that changed the reimbursement rates.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

i am not sure what that has to do with the opinion in the link in the OP

From the link in the OP...

President Donald J. Trump was in an epic battle with the HHS for his entire administration, wanting the massive and overblown agency to make better choices to serve the American people, and the left absolutely freaked out at the notion that a Government institution was not just a jobs program for them and their cronies- but was actually meant to serve the American people- effectively.

It was his HHS that did this "blatantly illegal thing".

It as his hand picked head of the HHS that ordered this change.

It was his DOJ that argued in the lower court it was legal for them to do.

Would you know that form this article?

 

[task0778]

Why does one need a law degree to understand this...HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore unlawful. The text and structure of the statute make this a straightforward case. Because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals.

Which part of that is confusing for you?

Which of those words are too big for you to understand?

Okay, let's walk through this. Xavier Becerra is the current Secretary of HHS, appointed by Biden in March 2021.

According to The Epoch Times, the court unanimously ruled that HHS, which is led by former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, illegally cut prescription drug reimbursements to hospitals by $1.6 billion per year in connection with a program that was established to help poorer patients.

[Why him? Cuz he's the current HHS boss ]

The decision is considered a victory for hospitals that serve low-income patients, the outlet reported, and will now allow them to seek the funds they were denied by Becerra’s agency.

The cuts were actually ordered during the Trump administration in 2018 and were defended in court (WTF?) by the Biden administration, which argued that the cuts more accurately reflected the cost of hospitals buying the drugs and that the government was permitted to do so per a legal provision that gave regulators the power to order reimbursement adjustments.

The Epoch Times adds:

But HHS improperly relied on a formula that Congress made available only in specific circumstances, which didn’t apply in the case, the court determined. President George W. Bush in 2003 signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act into law. The statute requires HHS to establish reimbursement rates every year for certain outpatient prescription drugs provided by hospitals using a predetermined formula.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Democrat Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated drug reimbursement rules for low-income patients in a blistering decision that the media is largely ignoring.
.
.
Reuters reported that SCOTUS justices overwhelmingly ruled in favor of hospitals that sued after HHS cut billions of dollars in annual Medicare reimbursements to a group of nonprofit hospitals that cater to poor and uninsured people.

SCOTUS overturned a lower court’s 2020 decision that the U.S. HHS had the authority to reduce by $1.6 billion the yearly Medicare payments for outpatient drugs that had helped subsidize the operations of hospitals catering to the poor and disabled.


SO - Trump's cuts in 2018 and 2019 were illegal but so were Biden's cuts in 2021? What about 2020?

Becerra comes in last year and doesn't change Trump's ruling on this issue? Did he not know the 2003 law? And the Biden Administration actually defended those cuts in court? WTF? One might think they would've reversed Trump's ruling and stopped those cuts instead of prolonging them.

Looks to me like both administrations were at fault here. In the overall scheme of things, $1.6 bil ain't that big of a deal, especially for lower income and rural areas.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

SO - Trump's cuts in 2018 and 2019 were illegal but so were Biden's cuts in 2021? What about 2020?

Becerra comes in last year and doesn't change Trump's ruling on this issue? Did he not know the 2003 law? And the Biden Administration actually defended those cuts in court? WTF? One might think they would've reversed Trump's ruling and stopped those cuts instead of prolonging them.

Looks to me like both administrations were at fault here. In the overall scheme of things, $1.6 bil ain't that big of a deal, especially for lower income and rural areas.

I am not removing fault from Biden and his HHS for not fixing this, but the claim of the OP was that this was the doing of Biden himself. There was no mention of the Admin that started this and fought for it in 2020.

Did the Biden Admin defend the cuts in court? The lower court ruling was in 2020. That was still the Trump admin.

And I disagree, 1.6 bil is a huge deal, especially lower income and rural areas that have been losing hospitals every since ObamaCare drove them to bankruptcy.

 

[Doc7505]

But Democrats care about the people!!!

~~~~~~
Remember Joey Xi and his merry Maoist thieves keep telling us. "It's for the Children".

Biden falls back on old Democrat sales pitch: Big spending is “for the children”

**********​

Nancy Pelosi: Dems must ‘be ready to throw a punch for the children’ in 2020

Speaker Nancy Pelosi closed out the week by advising Democrats to “throw a punch — for the children” come election season.

m.washingtontimes.com