is reasonable and passes muster under the court's uniformity standards and beyond that the three main reasons that the circuit court provided for declaring the provision unconstitutional don't stand up to prevail here branch after must be the heavy burden of showing that neither of the facts nor the law support that view that the fee is not reasonable fair by contrast all the state has to show for the it is a reasonable statute because it serves a legitimate function purpose by supporting this state's indigent and at risk population in the area of health care and elsewhere fosters the health and all of the state's citizens just to put some facts and figures meet on the phone with force contact the best he contributes in the years in the rafters we have twenty two of about fifty million dollars each year to something called the long term care for vitaphone which appears under a different provision and the long term care provider fund as well explained the moment funds for a variety of different state functions but in twenty to let in the long term care provider phone amounted to six hundred fifty million dollars fifty million of that came from the bed fee and five hundred fifty seven million dollars including green chapters and the numbers are quite similar in two thousand and twelve the other year they have about fifty million dollars from the betsy into the long term care provider fun which right at money to both of those two agencies my client and the department of so grim chapter is indeed a nursing home that's part of a larger nursing home system in this state that's regulated by state agencies and that benefits from expansions and ruben's to regulatory provisions and licensing as well so in this very elementary way the record and it's not factually shown in the record either it's relevant i'd like to start with just the first critical thought about uniformity flaws requires some sort of harm that an entity caused to just by being here or that more fair or the idea that there must be a dollar virtually a dollar return for every dollar that taxpayer pays the fact just the opposite is true under this  longstanding uniformity basis it's worse decisions on uniformity which the circuit court really didn't get into any detail except for one case makes clear that a small group of taxpayers can be required to subsidize a larger group or different groups or the general welfare of the public at large by the same token there's no uniformity violation when one segment of the population funds a different  or a limited general revenue raiser because the money raised from the from the best it goes into the fund or on the funds much more than just home field in the development of programs and standards that regulate health care and of funds new program as well so not all of these have to do with medicaid but it is called the statute eight feet so there's no problem in under uniformity when an entire segment of impoverished that runs or just any background have received support from both parents when there's a separation in the family but school children of course don't pay and the ticket and the state's tax supported emphasize that if that there were all the states acting this year last we couldn't have used tax for service use tax for retail occupation because those taxes look at very particular categories specific sales and then direct the funds into a special fund that don't necessarily go to a uniformity violation because dissimilar entities being treated similarly and we are talking here about telecommunications companies so cellular companies were the pla but they were lumped in together with landline operators and the cellular companies had to pay what was called a municipal infrastructure maintenance fee the problem is that this court correctly involve traditional elements of telecommunications companies switches and then whole covers cables to complete landline cos there was no rationale for the landline companies to at all like a cellular company in private so your company's it is fundamentally and functional very similar identical nearly sure other nursing home and cities in the system there's nothing in the record for instance to demonstrate there's a special or unique way that services are provided to the residence at the eastern star you know fraternal organization type whether it be food or i was the more activities or programs there's nothing to suggest any difference so there's really no material difference between home or any other that is licensed by the state the key difference appears to be that the twenty two or so residents of the grain chapter home all have to be members of that association women who mentioned earlier the long term fifty million dollars is paid into the fund each of two years and it goes to a multiplicity of different places there are at least half a dozen  health care and family services as well as the apartment of public health as i mentioned earlier in response to justice question some of those funds go into the general interest by the time if on medicaid  mentioned so in other words not just for medicaid related purposes so ran chapters argument of the bed fees that the funds only medicaid is in practice a matter of fact even if it matters legally the provision unconstitutional is the mistaken idea that charities are exempt from that if they are not under the plain language of section five in or any other provision that i've seen under article five treated differently from any of yours so in short your honour's the bed fee is reasonable and the circuit court's decision he parks from this board's long standing uniformity decisions for those reasons we would they please the court counsel my name is daryl williams i represent the deli first i'd like to state that when i make reference to the department i'm making reference to the department of health care and family service as opposed to department of public health and when i say eastern star i'm referring to the corporate india grant chapter or these two star easter stars probably  unfamiliar organization to most people in this courtroom it's a charitable and fraternal organization that was incorporated in zero eight hundred eighty five they have been providing nursing home care for in egypt women since late defined in the dictionary as well and it's a t that dispenses relief to the poor so clearly the eastern star is a charity they do not operate at a profit and they operate on donations they have absolutely no revenue stream at all all the money for the operation of this home than the net funds come from donations there is some private pay residents in the home there their carers provided for it half have cost the eastern star pays the other half so they're not making one penny on anyone between two thousand and two thousand and eleven eastern star contributed twenty eight million dollars care for injured women they are spending approximately two million some odd dollars every year to provide care for indigent women most of the women in the home are there under what are called life care contracts they contribute whatever assets they have when they enter the home to the eastern star and in return eastern star my department has absolutely no connection with the eastern star contrary to what the council has argued that money is being expended because of these two star the record counsel in the lower court he's in portland today and he tried his best to show some connection between the money that is raised and that in the that tax and eastern star he could not do it is there any mistakes you that would indicate that charities are exempt yes you know what is in the in the statute itself the only nursing home providers that can be passed are those  care they have to charge and there's a reason for that language which i will i will get into this this whole case first of all we are not we are not arguing with the legislat the whole statutory scheme is the purpose of it is to bring down funding for medicaid initially in the state of illinois there was and in the federal government there was very the reimbursement of medicaid providers is only one of the bad fuse many purposes that that's what the long term provider fine statute says but if you look at the findings of the legislature when they enacted this law if that's what it says do we go past that i mean i think you look at the line isn't that the plain reading of the statute that is when reading and stature within the legislature stated when enacted that statute that the purpose of this law was to provide medicaid funding  nothing else that's that's the well how how or i mean if you were here for the last case you heard the chief justice talk about what we do here extends past here how would we not do violence to stare to reconstruction principles if we avoid the plain reading those that ike i don't think there's any violation if you do that i'm not i'm not asking you to do to do that to to avoid the police plain reading of the statute what i what i will argue is that those expenditures have absolutely nothing to do with eastern star there's no connection of any kind you can go through that long list which we we went through  you can go through that long list and and if you look at the record you will find that it not one penny from this fund is being spent for any purpose that has anything to do with eastern star so as i understand your argument then is an initially used to look to where the legislature was going it had to do with medicaid right but even if we look at the plain reading you're saying the other list of purposes right does not affect your client that's correct but of course medicaid is woefully underfunded and to think that they have money to spend on other purposes is is a fallacy that the the hope idea of this exercise is to raise those matching funds which the states desperately trying to do the the initial statute that the state only used was and public activity seven days thirteen and that provided for a fifty percent tax on the gross receipts of a provider that the provider had to be providing nursing home care percent to so security so the easter star was not taxed under that scheme can i as counsel joe i don't want to lose this point where we were at that i know the state's position as we've already been talking about is only one of the for the medicaid they make the claim and i want your response to it since you're not going to another chance to get up here and i'm sure this is what we're going to hear from opposing counsel they make the claim that several of the purposes you said none they said several implicate grand chapter including payments to county operated nursing homes the payment of i d p ages administrative expenses helping to fund the general obligation bind retirement  interest on an underwriting the journal enforcement of nursing home standards the nursing home and bud's one program and various efforts to expand home and community based services none of those like i did i think they do not to the easter star they would none of us would you agree that if we disagree and that one or more of those apply that takes prime coffee table no i would i i would say it does because franco says you look at the purpose of what is what is her to decide whether classification is reasonable and clearly the purpose of this legislation is to really raise those matching funds that's at that's what the legislature said that's not what i'm saying and that's what reality is that the legislature is trying to break raise matching funds so that they can get money from the federal government  up on justice thomas why do you say the nursing home standards do not apply to eastern star because they are regulated by standards that are created by the department of public health not the department who let me back up and rephrase my question and maybe i didn't hear mr siegel correctly but he i thought he argued that the problem a geisha the standards are supported by the funding base that this nursing bed feel stablish is and the second thing i heard him and i've read this two different ways it's one to clear about something about reimbursement for background checks on him employees that they have been offenders yes they argued that in the trial court too and they're just like  or not the the nursing bed she goes into a fund that supports those activities he argued that but i have not seen any evidence demonstrating that actually as far as criminal background check criminal background checks that the eastern star is subject to are paid for by the eastern star may well be his brief use are you that you're eligible to get reimbursed was like so that's not accurate that's just assume you're saying you don't get reimbursed we do not get any really don't seek reimbursement even if we did we could not and there's the i'm going to get into this but the fact the federal law is what actually immediately and active public law one of two to thirty four which is forty three u s c thirteen ninety six b that's part of them is so security it's under title roman numeral nineteen this federal law dictates who the state can tax and how they can pass it and the state of illinois immediately recognized that they had a problem with  existing law and they then repeal that law and enacted another funding mechanism eighty seven dash eight six one and then the next year they and federal law this is not done in isolation the the the state submit their proposal to the center for medicare medicare medicaid services they review it se complies with thirteen ninety six b and then they enter into it so the state of the state funding mechanism has to comply with this federal law and that's important because the federal government dictates who you can raise the matching funds from and and you can only raise matching fund funds from a provider that is being paid for th argument just a loser for me right but i i think that i heard mr siegel indicate back to the purposes because you know we're off of the fact that it's only if we if we believe there are other purposes other than medicaid years and those purposes don't help grandchamp her anyway what authority do you have to say that even if they don't somehow apply to grand chapter of that grand chapter isn't liable for the taxes and i guess by analogy right i mean your you might send your kids to private school you're going to get your property tax bill and you can opt out of the tax for the public school district right so correct so what what authority would there be in this case if we agree with you that the interest bond in the administrator id ph this that the legislature has created a very narrow class to fine a general welfare fund it's a general welfare tax it's a very small class when the legislature does that the classification is essential and that and the small that members of that class have to have some kind of action to the and and if if there is an absolutely no connection in the way the class either have members are ether either cause the problem benefit from that the the taxation somehow there has to be some connection when you take a small class defined the general welfare of the city the supreme court of illinois that's always been law and that is that is a subject classification when you're using just a small group of people and in this instance their tax in eastern star who has absolutely no connection they don't cause the problem and they receive absolutely no benefit and in fact they alleviate the problem these these women that they're caring for would otherwise be on medicaid so they know don't not only do not cause a problem there they're providing care for egyptian people and the the the fact that they have chosen just a small group there has to be some kind of connection and there's something further about this this it's almost incredible in that the federal statute says that they tell you what kind of taxes you can raise and one of them is a bed tax the other one is  be reimbursed you can't be reimbursed for this that that is they take it away and then later they say oh yes but you can be reimbursed if the if you if the state is meeting certain tests so these medicaid provide they receive a three percent reimbursement over the normal compensation of care and so that the there medicaid or anything else you alluded earlier in your argument that you would not be included within the term nursing home provider because you don't charge as resident like a clarify for me though it seemed to me the facts this this is a statute sometimes this court comes comes to a case like this and it's fairly difficult to analyze it in a logical fashion sometimes a supporter said that last i thank you thank you decisions in the area of property tax exemptions go into great detail about funding mechanisms payment and whether services are at a loss or cost we don't we don't information we don't have anything we don't have anything showing that there's even a certificate for sales here we don't know if they paid but even if they are charitable based on what council has put into the record there is no exemption here and there making a statutory argument the claim that not one penny from the fund benefits branch chapter is again legally relevant nursing home in the state which pays fifty million dollars a year in total in the grand factors brief and in the discussion we heard earlier there's a lot of medical section five be the medicaid provision is not at issue so i don't know why we're talking about it but if we are talking about it on page thirteen of their brief in th court at the bottom of page there's a citation of three or five miles thirty five slash one dash two nine and this talks about federal matching funds and how they may be raised from a records as we as we show it pages fifteen sixteen are opening brief two million dollars of the fine goes to find the licensing operations of the department of public health benefit branch after because it is places and because it operates in a market place where improper or proper homes are bad actor homes or not its competitors down the  street licensing serves an important purpose not just to clarify something that you asked about justice kilbride there is no direct reimbursement under this mechanism to gran even larger than just nursing homes the state funding of programs that benefit the indigent and the apparatus mean that they have the health care that they need  the life skills and the health to continue to be self sufficient and that come the time when they're not able to care for themselves our nursing home system is not burdened even greater than it already is with people who can't afford to pay for their health it benefits as well from the my client with the department of health and family services overseeing health care system provide a reason for the statute is not arbitrary and we have help in the indigent and that risk is a good thing regardless of whether one nursing home or many or broad base pays for it but doesn't have to be evidentiary reasons we're not under criminal standard of review or burden of proof to justify every facet of the stache it's enough that there rational reason for it they were not going to benefit or create a problem but positing too many tourists at mccormick place and yet this sport held it was reasonable and rational to tax those class limousine a taxi providers because they were part of an overarching larger transit system that was going to benefit from the development of the former place wherever they deliver their