Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional!!

[kitesurfer2]

Signed in 2010 and we still are arguing about it. So disgusting. I’m so grateful that I have insurance through and employer and retiree healthcare, but as a citizen, this is enough to make me puke. We have been so let down by our representatives on this issue. Fix it. It’s past time.

totally surprised an admin has not shut this thread down.

 

[HadEnuff]

If ACA is eventually ruled illegal, I'll be looking for a big tax reduction. I am paying for the coverage of others, and I do not see any benefit to me and mine. Sounds selfish, but it is the truth in my case.

Oh don't worry. IF the ACA ever does go away, no matter which party is in power, they'll find some other ways to spend that money.

 

[HadEnuff]

The real benefit of tort reform is not the reduction in large settlements. The cost is the extra care that is performed for defensive reasons. If you come into an ER with a bump on your head, you’re gonna get a CT scan. I can’t imagine all the extra testing that gets performed on pregnant women just in case. How many times have you heard a doctor say, I think you have X but let’s just do a couple tests. Defensive medicine. The cost is way more than the big settlements.

I remember arguing with my doctor about a test for strep throat. Given that she had already said she was giving me an antibiotic given the look of my throat, I asked, how would my treatment change if I did have strep. It wouldn’t. So why do it. I didn’t.

Excellent point.

 

[pb4uski]

.... But I do agree that having a premium penalty would be beneficial, but good luck with getting that through congress....

Well, if Congress would just make me king, then the problem would be solved.

 

[Jerry1]

Signed in 2010 and we still are arguing about it. So disgusting. I’m so grateful that I have insurance through and employer and retiree healthcare, but as a citizen, this is enough to make me puke. We have been so let down by our representatives on this issue. Fix it. It’s past time.

totally surprised an admin has not shut this thread down.

I’m thankful they haven’t. This is a good conversation. FWIW, I have no natural political leaning. I have voted for members of both parties. My frustration is as highlighted above. The reasons can be argued (not in this forum ), and blame can applied (again, not in this forum), but I think my statement is factual. We, as a country have been arguing over this for 8+ years and there seems no end in sight. That’s frustrating. I mean it’s only healthcare, not like that really affects anyone. I mean seriously, is there anyone who thinks that people with pre existing conditions shouldn’t have some level of protection? So let’s lock that in and move to the next issue. I guess anything can be political, but common sense comes into play also. There isn’t anyone that couldn’t find themselves with a pre existing condition some day.

 

[Scuba]

If ACA is eventually ruled illegal, I'll be looking for a big tax reduction. I am paying for the coverage of others, and I do not see any benefit to me and mine. Sounds selfish, but it is the truth in my case.

Same situation, but I’m not holding my breath for a tax reduction!

 

[Montecfo]

I mean seriously, is there anyone who thinks that people with pre existing conditions shouldn’t have some level of protection? So let’s lock that in and move to the next issue. I guess anything can be political, but common sense comes into play also. There isn’t anyone that couldn’t find themselves with a pre existing condition some day.

I think it unlikely that coverage for pre-existing conditions does not remain available.

But SHOULD it be available for people who do not place a priority on insurance? You have millions of people who STILL go uninsured, even people who qualify for subsidies.

Those folks are just going to wait till they have a serious medical condition, presumably. Or they could be in non-compliant policies I suppose.

Hard to make the numbers work when insurance is not mandatory, cannot be denied, and preexisting conditions covered.

 

[Murf2]

If ACA is eventually ruled illegal, I'll be looking for a big tax reduction. I am paying for the coverage of others, and I do not see any benefit to me and mine. Sounds selfish, but it is the truth in my case.

Yeah, me too. I don’t have kids or drive a car, so I want my money back on that too. I can protect myself so I don’t want to pay for cops either.[emoji849]

 

[HFWR]

Just a thought, but everyone (who works) is required to pay into SS. How is that “legal”, but requiring insurance is not?

 

[broadway]

Just a thought, but everyone (who works) is required to pay into SS. How is that “legal”, but requiring insurance is not?

If SS was to come into fruition now, it won't be considered "legal" either.

.

 

[Chuckanut]

I’m thankful they haven’t. This is a good conversation. FWIW, I have no natural political leaning. I have voted for members of both parties. My frustration is as highlighted above. The reasons can be argued (not in this forum ), and blame can applied (again, not in this forum), but I think my statement is factual. We, as a country have been arguing over this for 8+ years and there seems no end in sight. That’s frustrating. I mean it’s only healthcare, not like that really affects anyone. I mean seriously, is there anyone who thinks that people with pre existing conditions shouldn’t have some level of protection? So let’s lock that in and move to the next issue. I guess anything can be political, but common sense comes into play also. There isn’t anyone that couldn’t find themselves with a pre existing condition some day.

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Americans are on board with you.

 

[24601NoMore]

As someone entering ER next month with ~10 years to go to Medicare, this news is somewhat alarming..even though we (DW and I) plan to both do COBRA for the next 18 months.

I don't expect SCOTUS to disagree with the Texas judge. Robert's entire original opinion hinges on the fact that Congress has the power to levy taxes. No tax (penalty now gone), no power. Given that, if SCOTUS rules on a purely legal vs. political basis, I would not expect the Texas judge to be overturned.

Roberts twisted himself into legal pretzels to write the original opinion (after reportedly writing a scathing dissent that would have killed the "A"CA right then and there), but his supply of pretzel dough just vaporized with the Texas judge ruling.

Where this all ends, no-one knows. But for those thinking SCOTUS will overturn the Texas judge, I don't see any legal avenue for them to do so. (Keeping in mind, of course, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV ). What they will do POLITICALLY is an entirely different topic. We saw that last go around..no guarantee we won't see something similar on the next run up the flagpole to SCOTUS.

In the meantime, even though I've hated the "A"CA since the day it was "deemed" passed (hello, $15-20K premiums with $6,500 per person (!!) deductibles), we do need SOMETHING that people who are not getting their HC through corporations can buy..but it should TRULY be "affordable" and $15-20K (or more) per year with $6,500 per person deductibles is hardly affordable for anyone..

 

[mpeirce]

...but it should TRULY be "affordable" and $15-20K (or more) per year with $6,500 per person deductibles is hardly affordable for anyone..

I'm in my late 50's and the plan I have for my son (in college) and myself is $7,150 with a high deductible (and HSA) in Ohio. Doesn't seem hugely unaffordable.

 

[Teacher Terry]

This is one reason why I keep my very expensive HI through my past employer even though it would be much cheaper with the ACA. Too many uncertainties and they warn you if you drop it they may not let you back on retirement plan.

 

[flintnational]

Just a thought, but everyone (who works) is required to pay into SS. How is that “legal”, but requiring insurance is not?

IMO, the debate (and one of the cases heard by the Supreme Court surrounding the ACA) centered on your exact question. Per the Constitution section 8, article 1, Congress clearly can "raises taxes". So, Social Security and Medicare meet this test. Both are taxes. Your point about requiring citizens to have insurance is where the ambiguity lies. Many believe Congress does not have the authority to require the purchase of any product. So, we are left in a world where congress could legally raise taxes and fund a national program but may not have the authority to require the purchase of insurance in a private system.

ETA: Post 999!

 

[SumDay]

Great opinion piece in the NY Times about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/...ing-unconstitutional-affordable-care-act.html

"But audaciously, the states argued — and Judge O’Connor agreed — that the rest of Obamacare must fall, too. They claim that the mandate is so central to the A.C.A. that nothing else in it can operate without it.
That’s not how the relevant law works. An established legal principle called “severability” is triggered when a court must consider what happens to a statute when one part of it is struck down. The principle presumes that, out of respect for the separation of powers, courts will leave the rest of the statute standing unless Congress makes clear it did not intend for the law to exist without the challenged provision. This is not a liberal principle or a conservative principle. It is an uncontroversial rule that every Supreme Court justice in modern history has applied."

 

[ShokWaveRider]

This whole judgement "may" prompt/encourage congress (Post January 2019) to re-visit the ACA and healthcare in general. It may end up being a good thing.

 

[RE2Boys]

The mandate still exists, just the tax for not having health insurance has been set to zero beginning in 2019. As part of the ACA from the beginning, there is no criminality for forgoing insurance. The IRS could never take any action to collect the tax for noncompliance. They did keep track of the tax owned and could attach any refund to collect the ACA back taxes, but could not take any other action to collect.

 

[24601NoMore]

Great opinion piece in the NY Times about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/...ing-unconstitutional-affordable-care-act.html

"But audaciously, the states argued — and Judge O’Connor agreed — that the rest of Obamacare must fall, too. They claim that the mandate is so central to the A.C.A. that nothing else in it can operate without it.
That’s not how the relevant law works. An established legal principle called “severability” is triggered when a court must consider what happens to a statute when one part of it is struck down. The principle presumes that, out of respect for the separation of powers, courts will leave the rest of the statute standing unless Congress makes clear it did not intend for the law to exist without the challenged provision. This is not a liberal principle or a conservative principle. It is an uncontroversial rule that every Supreme Court justice in modern history has applied."

Pretty sure I read the ACA does not have a severability clause. Ergo, if one part of the law is determined to be unconstitutional, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Hard to believe they would have written this without severability, but believe that's the case..

 

[24601NoMore]

I'm in my late 50's and the plan I have for my son (in college) and myself is $7,150 with a high deductible (and HSA) in Ohio. Doesn't seem hugely unaffordable.

That's great. Unfortunately, many of us do not have plans to choose from in that price range. The cheapest PPO in my area is $15K+ with $6,500 per person deductibles. (Yes, I realize I could manage AGI to get subsidies - not an option in our case).

 

[fh2000]

This is one reason why I keep my very expensive HI through my past employer even though it would be much cheaper with the ACA. Too many uncertainties and they warn you if you drop it they may not let you back on retirement plan.

We too have a very expensive retiree health plan but we were told as long as we maintain insurance with no gap, we can come back. I hope they don’ t change that.

 

[scrabbler1]

I'd like to see the Alexander-Murray hearings get restarted. Back in September of 2017, those two senators held several hearings I watched on C-SPAN2 where they had experts and state health officials from both sides of the aisle engage in a productive Q&A with senators on their committee. Subsequent action got stalled but I'd like to it moving again. If some good changes come out of the senate, I can see the House taking it up.

 

[Luck_Club]

I'm in my late 50's and the plan I have for my son (in college) and myself is $7,150 with a high deductible (and HSA) in Ohio. Doesn't seem hugely unaffordable.

Maybe with a subsidy.

Just ran a family of 3 through Ohio's website.

$987 mo with $14,800 deductible.

 

[Jerry1]

Pretty sure I read the ACA does not have a severability clause. Ergo, if one part of the law is determined to be unconstitutional, the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Hard to believe they would have written this without severability, but believe that's the case..

When the ruling came out, I was listening to something that I recall bringing up to point that the law could no longer pay for itself. I certainly do not know all the details, but maybe severability comes from the original framework that the law cost a certain amount or that it was budget neutral. Now, without the penalty/tax/incentive to buy insurance, the cost and the basic framework of the law is being violated?

 

[HGTVfan]

Yeah, me too. I don’t have kids or drive a car, so I want my money back on that too. I can protect myself so I don’t want to pay for cops either.[emoji849]

Yes, no kids here so I’m waiting for a refund on 30 years of school taxes I’ve paid. Plus I don’t want to pay for the tax breaks given to freeloaders who get their insurance through their company.