defense zero five fifteen zero one mr wellington mandating statute that would permit your client to recover under the money mandating statute presumed to do tucker and that's the situation with your financial intermediaries the old  shy about applying please twelve reported cases where this court looked at the case and said ok to complain may say it x but we look more closely at it and we conclude that is why i think your which is the category of case you're really talking about here rather it seems to be quite different from a case in which you say that you may have sued a but you real complaint is with b and therefore we should treat this as if you've sued b which is what your case it seems to me comes down to and there you cite the key tom cases but those strike me is profoundly distinguishable because key tom is a case in which the individual is suing on behalf of the united states so it's no surprise that the courts would treat that as a case in which the united states the real party in interest but setting that kate that line of cases side where do we look for authority for the true nature doctrine to say you know this was a device picking this defendant to put yourself in one word supposed to the other and i think the other thing that you have to look at here well here why is it necessarily so that your view prevail here is your client with your client judgment proof musician actions where they need to sue the u s government to get out the  are the parameters of applying the doctrine that on the facts of this case that would lead me to conclude that the true desire here is for the plant short cover from the government as opposed to recovering from you well i position is that to the extent that there's any problem the sequence of events that has conspired here about which the hospitals are complaining it's a problem that is attributable to the government's cop that's correct ind district court without the governor and on this complaint we're going to have a very perverse incentive which is to say ok let's make sure that the district court holds that those all season regulations are invalid because we're going to be in the best possible position to recover from the government whatever judgment gets entered here and so it is a three quarter controversy at humanity is never denied that it has had entered into contracts with the hospitals as contractor in the right to look at the complaint as counsel for humanity by to do beginning page sixty two with a joint appendix contractual dispute that plus diversity of citizenship citizenship is more than enough to establish jurisdiction is to contractual parties to have a dispute and that should be the beginning of the end of the analysis of whether this case has to go to court to claim whether the hospitals have to change their claims change defended their suing and go to a different court where they have to do that this simply no legal basis requiring claims and sue the government that would be an issue first impression as you would expect me to say we don't agree with that but it's really relevant because they have gone to the court but the other issue this be dressed more in the man you get this far in the analysis and you simply look at humana as managed care contract it's complicated the reimbursement scheme in the one thing you will certainly come away with it is an understanding that it's course first of all the issue we think is in fact a very simple contract issue and as your honor is pointed out there only if one looks at it from the converse how could we have a claim against the government could have a claim against the government either because we have proven it with the government or we could have a claim because of some money mandated state you don't which we have a claim it is very clear and i think even mr wellington in his response or lack  honor conceives there is no privy with the government in fact the undisputed facts that were that were before the lower court the facts to which humana agreed include mr acton's affidavi in mr act into affidavit he says that the nature of the relationship between the government and these managed care support contractors changed in the mid sixty's excuse me to midnight they were no longer physical intermediary contracts they this is a a contract between humana and these hospitals in fact in the contract that humana has with the government they are required to set up this network in mr akin's in his these hospitals and can pay the amount necessary to get them in the network what they cannot do is use health care dollars to do that what they can do is use administratively often there are two components to their contract with the government the health care pricing and the administrative price they can use the administrative pricing the administrative dollars that they receive to do that that does not change in any way the fact that this is a contract between these hospitals and humana purely and simply interesting lee this issue was specifically built with  in a case that was that was recently decided and in that case the sixth circuit specifically find out that there was a there was no basis for humanise contingent as they out a minute ago we have no prudy there is no money mandated stand that allows us as a provider a provider who is contracted with humana under this system to go directly against the government well suppose that your you  me in a hurry or your manner when the tank i mean you're not going to walk away from your client by yes or end it in the nature of this contract is that there are certain monies that are paid to humana on a regular basis for health care costs and administrative costs and i would think that if they went bankrupt the government would still be obligated to pay into that bankrupt the state those monies and we would have a claim as a creditor in that bankruptcy in order to recover again they're certainly not privy and when you look at it was dealing with money mandated statute we don't fit in that gap but if the but if the government should decide that it's just going to stop paying you ma'am you have no recourse robert suit against the government if you meant simply says you know we'd love to pay you but the government has cut us off totally unjustified but they've done everything you can are your third party beneficiary the government's contract behind now we have an action by the lyrics and they're time but in all candor i think you've hit directly on the issue whether this regulation and policy that mr wellington wants to talk about is valid or not does not change the contract it does not change their ability on the undisputed facts in this record it does not change your ability to contract with these hospitals to be providers and it does not change their obligation to honor those contract thank you no one is ever penalized for not using all the t mr wellington has a little time laid out how it is that there is an assignment of the rights of the beneficiaries to the hospital and they simply waive it off without any kind of explanation as to why that was you know you can't force them right even if even if series of contracts that that are written in the financial world quite frequently where one party agrees to do something without a private party and they key an aspect of their performance to something the federal government's doing federal fund government's role in the private dispute are and so i say to myself you're right then all those cases going to have to end up in a corporate point where they don't belong i mean when the people on wall street start fighting with each other and they typically their case and they get a ruling for the district court that these government policies are regular or invalid that's and that's not very different for example in christian privilege which one of the cases cited in the passage from joe that against the government now this case is not exactly like this case but i think it's highly analogous in that what we're going to have here is a judgment from the district court that is going to either be raised to the carter to be highly get a declaratory judgment that you a million dollars and then walk into the court of federal claims and say sign a check that's pretty straightforward but think the government isn't coming in here and saying this is really a transparent e own witnesses admitted that they will have to pay at least eighty percent if not hundred percent of the cost in there it's one of the key terror cases eighty percent is