Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional!!

[gindie]

In a case that's been argued since January, a Texas federal judge ruled that since the individual mandate is being eliminated, then the thing that the Chief Justice John Roberts had hung his hat on was gone, and therefore the whole act is unconstitutional.


https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/14/texas-federal-judge-obama-health-care-law-unconstitutional/

 

[davebarnes]

Too soon to know what will happen.
We need to go back to sleep for at least 3 months.

 

[njhowie]

Some states have not repealed the individual mandate, working with insurers to help keep rates lower for their residents.

 

[aaronc879]

I don't care one way or the other about there being a penalty for not having coverage but I do care a lot about the possibility of allowing insurers to cancel coverage for people with pre existing conditions. That would be a HUGE step backwards.

 

[ERD50]

I don't care one way or the other about there being a penalty for not having coverage but I do care a lot about the possibility of allowing insurers to cancel coverage for people with pre existing conditions. That would be a HUGE step backwards.

And because of that, it won't happen. That's a 3rd rail for any politician.

Relax, let this play out.

-ERD50

 

[SecondCor521]

From the linked article:

"The plaintiffs argue that the entire ACA is invalid. They trace their argument to the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority that the penalty the law created for Americans who do not carry health insurance is constitutional because Congress 'does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.'

As part of a tax overhaul a year ago, congressional Republicans pushed through a change in which that ACA penalty will be eliminated, starting in January. The lawsuit argues that, with the enforcement of the insurance requirement gone, there is no longer a tax, so the law is not constitutional anymore."

I was wondering when someone would come up with this argument. Following with interest.

 

[MRG]

And because of that, it won't happen. That's a 3rd rail for any politician.

Relax, let this play out.

-ERD50

+1

 

[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.

 

[stepford]

If this gets decided by the Supreme Court just in time for 2020 - should be fun to watch.

 

[Texas Proud]

If this gets decided by the Supreme Court just in time for 2020 - should be fun to watch.

I doubt it will be decided by 2020... it has to go through appeals first... they might say it is still OK and overrule the lower court... they could decide the lower court was right and then another appeal... this takes time... only then does it go to the Supreme Court...


Since we are just starting the 2019 year it might be awhile... however, you never know... it could be there in 2020....

 

[pb4uski]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Let's take people healthcare away at ANY cost! And they call this a civilized country.

 

[MichaelB]

Let’s have a civil and informed conversation, please. Snarky sarcastic comments will just lead to another closed thread.

 

[footenote]

One lawyer's analysis:

"Important to note about the future of Obamacare:
1. It will be struck down in the 5th Circuit
2. If not, it goes to SCOTUS - Roberts was the swing vote in saving the ACA, not Kennedy (who was replaced by Kavanaugh)
3. Roberts called the ACA a constitutional mandate i.e. legal

"The Roberts ruling in support of the ACA (Obamacare) was that it WAS an individual mandate but the Constitution gives Congress broad power to raise taxes “for the general welfare.” So, Congress need not point to some other enumerated power to justify a tax.

"Those who opposed the ACA last time tried to call Obamacare a "penalty" and not a tax to strike it down. But Roberts found it would raise revenue, impose no sanction other than a tax and was calculated and collected by the IRS as part of the income tax, so he upheld the law.

"This latest TX ruling is based on the premise that the $0 penalty for failing to sign up for the ACA means that it can no longer be considered a tax & should not protected as such. But this ruling is inconsistent with Robert's definition of the ACA & goes against precedent.

"So expect this latest ruling to proceed on appeal to the 5th Circuit District Court and if the ACA is not saved there, it will go to SCOTUS, where it [the Friday ruling] is not likely to be upheld. This TX ruling is wrong and not supported by precedent established by Roberts himself." - Amee Vanderpool

(Twitter thread starts here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1073923437851238403

)

 

[Dtail]

So here is my question.
If the Supreme Court upholds the decision of unconstitutional, then until a substitute law is passed, does the law revert back to the pre Obamacare law, or does the existing Obamacare law stay in effect until a new one passes?

 

[donheff]

I don't get it. The law was challenged to begin with because the mandate imposed an obligation on taxpayers. The mandate itself is what was viewed as the constitutional problem. It was held constitutional because all the mandate did was impose a tax. Done deal. Now Congress removes the mandate so it removed any constitutional problem the was ever in question. How does that effect the constitutionality of rest of the law? And even if it does, wouldn't that invalidate the law removing the mandate instead of the Constitutionally valid original? Once the full decision is posted I will have to plod through it.

 

[Montecfo]

But this ruling is inconsistent with Robert's definition of the ACA & goes against precedent

Goes against precedent? How so?

 

[mpeirce]

How does that effect the constitutionality of rest of the law?

Most large laws have a “severability clause” attached to them. Essentially this means that if one part of a piece of large legislation is ruled unconstitutional by a court that unconstitutional portion is “severed” from the rest of the bill and the ruling doesn’t stop the rest of the law from being enforced. But this law, for some reason, doesn't have this clause. There are various work-around for this, but it does make it even more confused and messy.

 

[Montecfo]

I am not sure how you "work around" the provision that ALLOWED it to pass muster?

 

[ncbill]

So either the 5th Circuit or SCOTUS will save the ACA, but the penalty for not having creditable coverage will still be zero dollars?

 

[donheff]

I am not sure how you "work around" the provision that ALLOWED it to pass muster?

IIRC the constitutional "problem" was solely the mandate. The tax view "allowed" the mandate to become kosher. So we are still back to why the removal of the mandate should make other provisions of the law constitutionally problematic. Removal of the mandate certainly weakens the effectiveness of the overall law seems to get rid of any question about it's constitutionality.

 

[simple girl]

Although this news is somewhat concerning, we are still pulling the plug this spring. At this point the risk of running out of time to enjoy life is higher than the risk of possibly having to go back to work full-time for insurance coverage.

 

[Montecfo]

Donheff-

I think I see your point. With no forced purchase, perhaps no Constitutional issue.

I would have to read the decision.

Having said that, it appears the law has little chance to survive economically without the mandate. Unless our cultural views of health insurance changes causing everyone to see it as personally mandatory.

 

[GalaxyBoy]

Vox has a pretty good writeup on the lower court's decision at https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18065838/obamacare-unconstitutional-texas-ruling

One thing that stood out for me was, "Legal experts on the left and the right believe the arguments being made by Republican-led states are, on their face, uncompelling and unlikely to succeed in overturning the Affordable Care Act."

So, yeah, I'm going back to sleep on this one.

 

[Closet_Gamer]

A pox on both their houses.

That said, and in keeping with that sentiment, the FIRE issue here is less the absolute outcome than the rank uncertainty this decade long thrashing on healthcare policy has imposed on people trying to plan their lives.

There is:

No sign that this thrashing will settle down.

Some sign that Obamacare will get taken out.

A lot of political logic to say that it now has so much inertia there is no way Obamacare will get eliminated.

Quite a bit of math to say that absent a mandate -- actually a higher one -- the whole thing will come crashing down financially and quite possibly take key parts of the healthcare insurance infrastructure with it.

So: how does one planning to FIRE substantially before Medicare dance deal with this chaos in the private health insurance market?