Federal court rules Obamacare unconstitutional — but the law stands for now

[Jason]

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18065838/obamacare-unconstitutional-texas-ruling

 

 

[Jason]

 

[Mr.Vic20]

Cool. 

[RedSoxFan9]

The Heritage foundation doesn’t respect the constitution 

[marioandsonic]

Time to get the toothpaste back in the tube!

[Jason]

1 minute ago, marioandsonic said:

Time to get the pee pee back in the hookers!

 

ftfy

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Activist judges etc.

 

This is why it's very, very important to push for M4A when selecting candidates for general election

[Jason]

 

[brucoe]

Needs Supreme Court to address it again. Sad that this keeps happening, but that's why we have a Supreme Court. It's the same thing when California decides to set standards for the rest of the country. Just cause it's a good idea doesn't make it Constitutional.

[mclumber1]

This is actually a good development for proponents of single payer.  Taking away what people have relied on for the past 5 plus years will make them realize that the GOP was never looking out for them, and that they party doesn't have plan to replace Obamacare. 

[Jason]

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

This is actually a good development for proponents of single payer.  Taking away what people have relied on for the past 5 plus years will make them realize that the GOP was never looking out for them, and that they party doesn't have plan to replace Obamacare. 

 

You're making the very generous assumption that the Democrats have the spine to make use of this opening. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

You're making the very generous assumption that the Democrats have the spine to make use of this opening. 

 

They Democratic party is combination of the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and the Lion from the Wizard of Oz before they get to the Emerald City.

[Joestradamus]

I'm dumb on this one,  how exactly is the ACA supposedly unconstitutional?

[stepee]

8 minutes ago, Joestradamus said:

I'm dumb on this one,  how exactly is the ACA supposedly unconstitutional?

 

I believe the face taxes if you don’t get health care part.

[brucoe]

27 minutes ago, Joestradamus said:

I'm dumb on this one,  how exactly is the ACA supposedly unconstitutional?

Basically, the changes that the Trump Administration forced onto it now puts it into a condition that is not what the ACA originally was supposed to be, so the administration's argument is, of course, that now it's not constitutional cause they made it break the rules (part of it has to do with the precondition mandate). It's a really stupid run around that is being argued for how "brilliant" it is.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

40 minutes ago, Joestradamus said:

I'm dumb on this one,  how exactly is the ACA supposedly unconstitutional?

The mandate is constitutional because it is a tax, per SCOTUS. The Republican tax law removed the tax penalty for not having health insurance, though the mandate is still on the books. The argument is that because there is no penalty, and the mandate is an integral part of the law (and can't be severed from the whole rest of the law) therefore the whole thing is unconstitutional, even the Medicaid expansion. I think this is bullshit, because it flies in the face of legislative intent.

 

Also, Democrats won't have a Senate majority anytime soon based on the Senate map in 2020 (unless Trump gets term #2) so arguing over whether the Dems can pass M4A is stupid.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The mandate is constitutional because it is a tax, per SCOTUS. The Republican tax law removed the tax penalty for not having health insurance, though the mandate is still on the books. The argument is that because there is no penalty, and the mandate is an integral part of the law (and can't be severed from the whole rest of the law) therefore the whole thing is unconstitutional, even the Medicaid expansion. I think this is bullshit, because it flies in the face of legislative intent.

 

Also, Democrats won't have a Senate majority anytime soon based on the Senate map in 2020 (unless Trump gets term #2) so arguing over whether the Dems can pass M4A is stupid.

 

I'm no fancy bird lawyer but it sure seems like the reasoning by this judge would have us conclude that it's the change by the Republican tax law that's unconstitutional.

[Joestradamus]

Got it, thanks all.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

54 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I'm no fancy bird lawyer but it sure seems like the reasoning by this judge would have us conclude that it's the change by the Republican tax law that's unconstitutional.

Eh...I wouldn't say so. Congress made the tax penalty $0, but left language in that requires someone to have health insurance or pay a $0 fine

 

What these state AGs and Trump administration are saying is this fine of $0 effectively eliminates the requirement to own insurance, with without that requirement the rest of the act cannot function because the insurance requirement is so essential to the act, because it's one of the three pillars of the law (everyone has to be covered /pre-existing condition and other protections, this means that everyone should need to have insurance, and there are subsidies/Medicaid for those who can't otherwise afford it) so if you effectively remove one, you have to remove all. I don't buy this because you can remove the fine and the rest of the law still works.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Eh...I wouldn't say so. Congress made the tax penalty $0, but left language in that requires someone to have health insurance or pay a $0 fine

 

What these state AGs and Trump administration are saying is this fine of $0 effectively eliminates the requirement to own insurance, with without that requirement the rest of the act cannot function because the insurance requirement is so essential to the act, because it's one of the three pillars of the law (everyone has to be covered /pre-existing condition and other protections, this means that everyone should need to have insurance, and there are subsidies/Medicaid for those who can't otherwise afford it) so if you effectively remove one, you have to remove all. I don't buy this because you can remove the fine and the rest of the law still works.

 

I mean specifically the piece of the tax law that zeroes out the penalty for not buying insurance. If you have a constitutional law (the ACA), and you pass something (the tax bill) that modifies it in a way that's unconstitutional, then the problem is clearly with the latter and not with the former. Doubly so given that the latter was very specifically sold as not being a straight repeal of the former.

[PaladinSolo]

We're at this weird point where the GOP probably wants this reversed more than anyone because they were just eviscerated in the house partly over its ACA repeal bill, where they tried to say they'd protect pre-existing condition protections, only to have one of their judges overturn the law.  On top of that numerous red states voted to expand medicaid under the ACA as well.  Imagine them going in to 2020 and not getting reversed, Trump at the top of the ticket, and an economic slow down/recession hitting.

[SuperSpreader]

5 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

We're at this weird point where the GOP probably wants this reversed more than anyone because they were just eviscerated in the house partly over its ACA repeal bill, where they tried to say they'd protect pre-existing condition protections, only to have one of their judges overturn the law.  On top of that numerous red states voted to expand medicaid under the ACA as well.  Imagine them going in to 2020 and not getting reversed, Trump at the top of the ticket, and an economic slow down/recession hitting.

Sounds great!

[mclumber1]

9 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

We're at this weird point where the GOP probably wants this reversed more than anyone because they were just eviscerated in the house partly over its ACA repeal bill, where they tried to say they'd protect pre-existing condition protections, only to have one of their judges overturn the law.  On top of that numerous red states voted to expand medicaid under the ACA as well.  Imagine them going in to 2020 and not getting reversed, Trump at the top of the ticket, and an economic slow down/recession hitting.

 

It's a dream come true for Democrats.  The doom and gloom being projected by the left from this decision by the Texas judge is entirely misplaced.  Christmas came early for the party.  Let the ACA burn, as it only helps the left in 2020. 

[CitizenVectron]

39 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

It's a dream come true for Democrats.  The doom and gloom being projected by the left from this decision by the Texas judge is entirely misplaced.  Christmas came early for the party.  Let the ACA burn, as it only helps the left in 2020. 

 

I mean, true, but if the ACA actually disappears before 2020 then real people will be hurt, so that will suck. Long-term it is good though.