Health insurers bet on Obamacare because Barack Obama made sure their enormous losses would be covered by the American Taxpayer. It was negated afterward but the Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that it can never be negated because a promise was mande. The original promise can not be withdrawn.

Only Justice Alito dissented.

Health insurers will now get at least $12 billion in what Justice Alito calls ‘bailout’ money during this time of financial crisis. They bet on the faulty Obamacare program because Obama promised they could never lose and he was right apparently.

There are many other failed Obamacare programs that will expect compensation from the U.S. taxpayer.

This case was brought by red states and backed by the Trump administration.

PROMISES MADE

In 2015, the year after the promise was made, Republican lawmakers approved the first in a series of annual appropriations riders barring HHS from using taxpayer dollars to bankroll the program, known as risk corridors.

The high court agreed with insurers that the congressional spending restrictions didn’t release the government from its original promise to fund the Obamacare program. The court said Congress had created “a rare money-mandating obligation” that later appropriations language couldn’t repeal.

Obama promised taxpayer money and it seemed clear that those programs were too flawed to succeed. That is why they were backed up with tax dollars.

“These holdings reflect a principle as old as the Nation itself: The Government should honor its obligations,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the majority opinion.

The lone dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito, criticized the ruling as effectively providing a massive bailout for the insurance industry.

“Under the court’s decision, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question,” Alito wrote.

It won’t affect the threat to Obamacare law. A separate case was brought by Republican-led states challenging the law’s constitutionality, which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, likely later this year.

However, are they going to continue supporting this flawed law?