Friday, November 15, 2013

Can private citizens sue those who profited building defective exchanges like

The face that launched a few thousand crappy health plans....
It cost over $640 million dollars to build the health care exchanges.  Private sector companies and consultants (the sort that help corporations build their retail sites) have stated that that those exchanges should have cost a small fraction of that.  

Making matters worse, those internet exchanges have failed miserably. The persons involved in building those sites were often pals and supporters of Obama.  For example: Obama bundler and pal Anthony Welters was hired and paid to go back and fix the broken website he provided.  Did I mention Welters was a classmate of Michelle Obama too?

So given we are red blooded Americans, can we sue the bastards?  Short answer:  It is definitely possible!  

There is the False Claims Act (which happens to be the "law of the land" as many Democrats like to remind us).  The False Claims Act allows a Qui Tam action (which is Latin abbreviation for "Whoever sues on behalf of the King, sues on behalf of himself").  A person can sue companies that have defrauded the government and get to keep a percentage of damages they collect.  

Here is an example of a provider being successfully sued in a health care context.  

Andrew Stiles at NRO says we can not prosecute for fraud.  But we can go after those who bilked the government in creating that mess.  

Meanwhile: Captain my Captain!  
TOM: Shorter Obama, It sucks to be me!
TOM: The endless debacle of Obamacare

States got $4.4 billion from the Feds for this roll out?  Where did all the money go?
TOM: Breaking News--the Identify Theft industry loving! Criminals loving it too.

Even "Adriana" is a victim, blamed for the web site, not paid for the photo 
(and she is an illegal alien from Columbia, not paid by the Democrats who took her picture)


  1. As regards to your question, typically contracts with a government entity, particularly the federal government, include an indemnification clause. So no, you can't sue the contractor, only the government. It is one more reason to limit the size of government.

    Indemnification isn't a bad thing. It would be counter-productive to allow people to sue Lockheed Martin when a government official decided to bring in the Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas. Instead, Lockheed Martin was fined for the foam loss on the tank, which they build in New Orleans, that doomed Columbia. The US taxpayer had to pay for the settlements for injuries and losses on the ground.

    1. A indemnification clause that requires the government to indemnify for a contractor's fraud is uninforceable as a matter of public policy.

    2. "An indemnification..." My bad.

      And the False Claims Act and Qui Tam actions are nothing new. That law has been in place since the Civil War (in response to contractor fraud) and people sue over it all the time. Usually it is an insider whistleblower who has the facts to show the contractor was actively trying to defraud the government (by over billing, etc.). While not the easiest standard to prove (it has to be specifically alleged and then proven by clear, cogent and convincing evidence), once you get there the remedies and penalties against the contractor are huge.


I welcome all legitimate comments. Keep it civil. Spam will be deleted. Thanks.