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

[Rye Catcher]

Leftism kills more people than any inanimate object you can name.

Define "Leftism".

 

[struth]

yet you still cannot back up your claim.

you are all talk and no honesty.

if you read the op link it clearly states it. I don't know how else to back it up, it's in the link in the OP you apparently refuse to read

 

[Harpy Eagle]

if you read the op link it clearly states it. I don't know how else to back it up, i

Copy and paste the words from the OP link, that is how you back it up.

I am calling you a lair. Either prove me wrong or admit your are lying.

 

[struth]

Copy and paste the words from the OP link, that is how you back it up.

I am calling you a lair. Either prove me wrong or admit your are lying.

what do you think I am lying about?

"POLITICO called Becerra, ‘Trump’s health nemesis’ in a 2020 article detailing how Becerra was put in place to reverse Trump’s health policy, making this smack down especially fun to watch for supporters of Trump’s America First policies."

I mean the op-ed is littered with it being a trump era policy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

what do you think I am lying about?

"POLITICO called Becerra, ‘Trump’s health nemesis’ in a 2020 article detailing how Becerra was put in place to reverse Trump’s health policy, making this smack down especially fun to watch for supporters of Trump’s America First policies."

I mean the op-ed is littered with it being a trump era policy.

That does not say this policy was a Trump era policy, it says just the opposite in fact implying that Becerra changed the Trump era policy.

You are a liar and I am bored with you.

Carry on

 

[struth]

That does not say this policy was a Trump era policy, it says just the opposite in fact implying that Becerra changed the Trump era policy.

You are a liar and I am bored with you.

Carry on

well again i am not sure what you claimed i lied about

if you can’t understand the op-ed fine…but just admit it, and don’t start attacking everyone else

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

The Republic Brief

Old School Journalism You Can Count On

republicbrief.com

21 Jun 2022 ~!~ By Kari Donovan

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.
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.
~Snip~
In the ruling, the court said the HHS, 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.
POLITICO called Becerra, ‘Trump’s health nemesis’ in a 2020 article detailing how Becerra was put in place to reverse Trump’s health policy, making this smack down especially fun to watch for supporters of Trump’s America First policies.
“Becerra, a former House lawmaker, would enter Biden’s HHS without traditional health or management experience – but with immense power to undo Trump’s actions,” Politico reported.
~Snip~
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.
“At issue in the case was how HHS set Medicare reimbursement rates for certain prescription drugs in its so-called 340B drug program. The hospital industry group challenged a Trump-era rule that reduced the rates,” CNN reported.
The unanimous opinion was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“Supreme Court steps into international custody dispute, giving lower courts more discretion The court said HHS acted unlawfully in how it went about varying the rates,” Jon Daughtery wrote for Conservative Brief on Tuesday, explaining the court’s decision.​

“In short, the statute allows HHS to set reimbursement rates based on average price and affords the agency discretion to ‘adjust’ the price up or down. But unless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group,” Kavanaugh wrote.​

Commentary:
Unanimous means a few of the justices who aren’t even qualified in a real sense to be on the court still made a mistake and got it right.
Oh the horrors.
You won't see the Quisling MSM printing much about this because it makes Joe Biden and his handpicked Maoist buddies look bad. Especially Xavier Becerra. Here is HHS directly harming the very people they claim to help or care about. Obamacare hurt Americans by taking 20% of their take home pay, it is just so expensive.
Becerra and HHS did not interpret the statute. Becerra willfully directed and disregarded the law in order to promote their Progressive agenda.

At issue in the case was how HHS set Medicare reimbursement rates for certain prescription drugs in its so-called 340B drug program. The hospital industry group challenged a Trump-era rule that reduced the rates,” CNN reported.
The unanimous opinion was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Didn’t even read you own link.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Really?

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.

 

[JusticeHammer]

well again i am not sure what you claimed i lied about

if you can’t understand the op-ed fine…but just admit it, and don’t start attacking everyone else

Golfing Gator has been lying so long he no longer knows how to tell the truth.

 

[task0778]

That does not say this policy was a Trump era policy, it says just the opposite in fact implying that Becerra changed the Trump era policy.

GG, what I got out of it was that Trump cut the reimbursements to certain hospitals in 2018 and 2019, and Becerra didn't change that policy. I thought they said that Trump's policy was in fact wrong because the HHS did not follow the requirement to do a survey to determine the proper costs, and Becerra continued the same thing. From the OP:

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 said that Biden’s buddy, Becerra, had failed to follow the proper procedures in varying reimbursement rates in a drug program aimed at hospitals that typically serve larger shares of disadvantaged patients.

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.

“At issue in the case was how HHS set Medicare reimbursement rates for certain prescription drugs in its so-called 340B drug program. The hospital industry group challenged a Trump-era rule that reduced the rates,” CNN reported.

In its oral argument, the government said that HHS had not previously conducted the needed surveys because they are “very burdensome” on study takers and hospitals and because they don’t produce very accurate results.

“In short, the statute allows HHS to set reimbursement rates based on average price and affords the agency discretion to ‘adjust’ the price up or down. But unless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The court added: “We do not agree with HHS’s interpretation of the statute … [and] conclude that, absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals. HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore contrary to the statute and unlawful.”


I hafta wonder, why didn't Becerra change Trump's policy in this instance? I got no idea. Or did he? The court didn't mention later reimbursements for 2020 and 2021.

 

[struth]

Golfing Gator has been lying so long he no longer knows how to tell the truth.

it’s clearly he started posting on this thread without even reading the topic…got caught and now is lashing out calling everyone a liar

 

[Harpy Eagle]

well again i am not sure what you claimed i lied about

if you can’t understand the op-ed fine…but just admit it, and don’t start attacking everyone else

you lied about the article claiming it was a Trump era policy that was ruled illegal. The link does not say that at all

 

[struth]

GG, what I got out of it was that Trump cut the reimbursements to certain hospitals in 2018 and 2019, and Becerra didn't change that policy. I thought they said that Trump's policy was in fact wrong because the HHS did not follow the requirement to do a survey to determine the proper costs, and Becerra continued the same thing. From the OP:

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 said that Biden’s buddy, Becerra, had failed to follow the proper procedures in varying reimbursement rates in a drug program aimed at hospitals that typically serve larger shares of disadvantaged patients.

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.

“At issue in the case was how HHS set Medicare reimbursement rates for certain prescription drugs in its so-called 340B drug program. The hospital industry group challenged a Trump-era rule that reduced the rates,” CNN reported.

In its oral argument, the government said that HHS had not previously conducted the needed surveys because they are “very burdensome” on study takers and hospitals and because they don’t produce very accurate results.

“In short, the statute allows HHS to set reimbursement rates based on average price and affords the agency discretion to ‘adjust’ the price up or down. But unless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The court added: “We do not agree with HHS’s interpretation of the statute … [and] conclude that, absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals. HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore contrary to the statute and unlawful.”


I hafta wonder, why didn't Becerra change Trump's policy in this instance? I got no idea.

Moreover, it highlights the massive hypocrisy of Becerra and Xiden in how they attack him for making the policy....then continued the policy

 

[struth]

Really?

Yes really....

and the OP is also correct in that it is currently, or was a Xiden era policy as they continued it

 

[Harpy Eagle]

SCOTUS said that Biden’s buddy, Becerra, had failed to follow the proper procedures in varying reimbursement rates in a drug program aimed at hospitals that typically serve larger shares of disadvantaged patients.

Notice how the article never said that Trump's buddy Azar failed to follow the proper procedures in varying reimbursement rates in a drug program aimed at hospitals.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Moreover, it highlights the massive hypocrisy of Becerra and Xiden in how they attack him for making the policy.

Can you link to them attacking him for the policy?

 

[struth]

you lied about the article claiming it was a Trump era policy that was ruled illegal. The link does not say that at all

hahahah of course it does....it discuss it at length

 

[struth]

Can you link to them attacking him for the policy?

hahah read the link in the OP...it discusses it.

You are really going out of your way to just avoid the subject here today

 

[Harpy Eagle]

hahahah of course it does....it discuss it at length

nope, it does not come close to doing so

 

[Harpy Eagle]

hahah read the link in the OP...it discusses it.

You are really going out of your way to just avoid the subject here today

The link in the OP offers no examples of them attacking this policy.