raise these issues in the in the complaint i just now it is true that in the memorandum in opposition we we acknowledge we could have done better job making it clear that this is we were at that point trying to argue make clear that for purposes of appeal your focus is now on these procedural injuries exclusively descriptor you're not asserting novel not procedural traditional article three injury invalidate these plans but of course time these are when your plans and time has passed by the twenty twelve and the twenty thirteen and the twenty fourteen plans and are now in the middle of the twenty fifteen open season has anything changed on the coverage for these secretary to negotiate more or extract an explanation be of any benefit whatsoever to your client how redress is injury and anyway well your honor we believe  a substantive legal right or interest of the person that is asserting the procedural injury and you've abandoned any claim of any alternative type of injury that procedural injury would be protecting so i'm trying to figure out to insist on negotiation for individual terms of individual benefits i don't think that they said that your honor but i think it's an inescapable conclusion based on the right to use were federal employees in the family members of  limited to that the federal government's health insurance program is often the leader in coverage so my when you have the same argument going i don't care the private companies are doing you have a duty to negotiate and to the minimum extract an explanation as with the best possible health care was awesome cells that's what this court had in mind when it was considering the fact that opium is not only responsible for considering the availability of catastrophic benefits like mental health that's the real there but also other forms of i there does need to be a reasonable really reasonable relationship between the research that are charged and the cost of benefits that are provided we're saying here there's there's not a racial issue if there's a history here on his family arbitrary capricious one example is look at this everybody else has managed to cover durable medical equipment and this and that the secretary has utterly failed that's one example here's another example here's another example and simply brought an arbitrary and capricious challenge to the way in which that i keep saying secretary i'm sorry director has been handling this process that have  have in the private marketplace supposed to be competitive that what you're supposed to have private has things about your cost effective pricing reasonable pricing and so they simply said imagine what came out hope it's open season and i look in that our five plans that are absolutely the worst in the entire country they are three times more expensive than every other plan in the country and the benefits are about twenty percent of what every other plan gets it is an atrocious collection of plans clearly haven't seen a complete failure on the part of the director to do any of the negotiations for comparable coverage or comparable reasonable pricing and th excluded catastrophic coverage those are things that the only thing we've got is catastrophic coverage but actually i think i do want to correct one issue which is that the provision subsection i that they were talking about comparability to private plans that talks about the comparability rates not the comparability benefits and it is opium is job is numerous agencies have to exercise its discretion this is an area where i really do think that under s simply well i don't have this if it has his claim were changed to look i shouldn't have to pay him for plans where the vast majority of the plan options i have don't cover this most basic thing the same way i'm saying that it's an enormous i mean with the rates in the federal lands were uniformly too high for the benefits provided relative to what the rates in the private lands  a few i mean if everybody if every few people who want a specific item included but in general ends up does your claim matter if a large what if it's every day every every every wants mammograms covered so it's largest not small and you're not covered i mean everybody else does and why are we having to pay for insurance plans that just don't cut right any rate whatsoever for plans that don't cover the same thing everyone else in the world does and fifty percent of the population needs it i mean i want to see one hypothetical very very very unfair in time in history that it wasn't i understand but today and also i mean at the time we have to compare actually this type of provision the necessary and desirable standard that actually applies to what benefits are in and what benefits around that really isn't reviewable what this review will again are the which specific benefits in which the backup on standing so it's well known i see me agree that courts can always evaluate standing on their own we have an obligation to know is look at standing even if the parties haven't raised in the parties couldn't agree to standing jurisdiction and then the farm if we didn't actually have it is there a reverse sort of postulate that says when we look at c m d and if we look at jurisdiction then for actually is jurisdiction we have to acknowledge the jurisdiction were assigned by congress even if the parties haven't made the right arguments for the government to come in the case and i make the wrong argument for jurisdiction but they're actually lester as fiction and you're a pilot now and you just someone just made the wrong argument for jurisdiction that we actually had to the court to duty at that point is to dismiss for lack of dictional problem discussed it and then found it satisfied with the parties i mean raise the issue at all we do that so we don't always say well you didn't meet your point you didn't come forward and challenge we were able to find it in the record  and say you have to give us a legal rule that we can put in an opinion how would we write an opinion that would say normally folks don't have standing but because this is a small group and as a small group it wouldn't take m there is specific things that are listed are identified as examples of durable medical equipment when essential example is a wheelchair is something that is used for a long period of time it's medically necessary used only by the individual who is sick and is is who are merely saving themselves a couple extra bucks by not providing this benefit to federal employees when the same plan sponsors are providing it for the employees of course it's a where's