# Federal judge rules Obamacare is now invalid **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 15, 2018, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159 "2018-12-15T04:07:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wguy123](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wguy123/32/3161_2.png) [@wguy123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wguy123)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/41 "2018-12-17T17:05:16Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > GOP attitudes about the ACA (Obamacare) seem to me to be similar to how British conservatives view the Brexit plan; they hate it but don’t have any better idea. Two years and they still haven’t gotten around to “repeal and replace”. I think I heard that term about a million times prior to 2016. Why are we still talking about Obamacare? Oh yeah, because the Republicans are worthless and can’t get shit done, nor do they have any idea what they would do if they could get anything done. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/42 "2018-12-17T17:27:17Z")
Are there people nostalgic for the days when, for example, you could be unable to buy health insurance if you had a pre-existing condition? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/43 "2018-12-17T17:28:32Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > I think the argument is that they can do anything they want, including pass or repeal a tax, but their action can’t violate the Constitution. Repealing this mandate/tax may have done just that. Then the obvious judicial solution would have been to reinstate the mandate, since repealing it was unconstitutional. Unless the ruling was partisanly conclusion-driven. \*That \*couldn’t be true, could it? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/44 "2018-12-17T18:19:21Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Are there people nostalgic for the days when, for example, you could be unable to buy health insurance if you had a pre-existing condition? I have heard many people complain that “Obama lied!” – they didn’t get to keep their old health insurance. What they are missing is that the old, less-expensive insurance didn’t cover critical things they need covered. It was costing them less per scheduled payment, but merely taking the money and not providing real value in return. The ACA simply required real insurance coverage instead of snake oil. As far as the expense goes, hospital emergency rooms were already covering uninsured people quite extensively, and passing the bill on to the rest of us with a healthy markup. IN THEORY, the ACA shifts that cost burden more equitably back onto the people who get the services. But either way, health care is costing us all a lot – that problem is independent of Obamacare (and per-existing). ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/45 "2018-12-17T18:25:34Z")
Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose Congress had passed the current version of the ACA from scratch, rather than amending the previously existing ACA. The question of severability wouldn’t exist, because they wouldn’t have severed anything. Would the law be constitutional in that case? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/46 "2018-12-17T18:27:58Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > > > Are there people nostalgic for the days when, for example, you could be unable to buy health insurance if you had a pre-existing condition? > > I have heard many people complain that “Obama lied!” – they didn’t get to keep their old health insurance. > > What they are missing is that the old, less-expensive insurance didn’t cover critical things they need covered. It was costing them less per scheduled payment, but merely taking the money and not providing real value in return. The ACA simply required real insurance coverage instead of snake oil. > > As far as the expense goes, hospital emergency rooms were already covering uninsured people quite extensively, and passing the bill on to the rest of us with a healthy markup. IN THEORY, the ACA shifts that cost burden more equitably back onto the people who get the services. But either way, health care is costing us all a lot – that problem is independent of Obamacare (and per-existing). Having uninsured Americans use emergency departments for primary care (or delaying care until it’s a real emergency) is a really expensive, inefficient way to deliver health care. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/47 "2018-12-17T20:11:17Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Are there people nostalgic for the days when, for example, you could be unable to buy health insurance if you had a pre-existing condition? I miss the days where the government couldn’t pass laws that get construed as taxes forcing people to buy broccoli. The government should not have this power. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/48 "2018-12-17T21:55:43Z")
Congratulations on your ability to grind your own axe, **Bone**! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2018, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/49 "2018-12-18T05:11:06Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I think the bolded part is incorrect. > > I’ve been reading about this for several hours now and I think I understand the decision and I think I agree with it, from a legal perspective (although IANAL). > > O’Connor is saying that _Congress_ made the two inseparable, by design, when they created the PPACA. He’s saying that previous rulings upheld that and pointed it out, so he can’t ignore it: it’s the way things are intended. > > And since Congress and SCOTUS agree that you can’t have one without the other, and since Congress did away with the one… I’m typing with one hand while pouring Clorox in my ear to get to my brain with the other hand because you are arguing a right wing position and I am arguing a left wing one. 🙂 The proper way to look at this is not to say that this Congress did X or that this Congress did Y. We assume that Congress as a body meant to enact the entire state of the law that it enacted. When we do that, we see that Congress meant to enact the remainder of the ACA with an individual mandate set at a tax penalty of $0. We know from human experience that those inclined to violate the law obey it because of penalties, financial or otherwise. Why don’t I drive 90mph when I am in a hurry? Because I might get a ticket. Likewise, if I did not want to buy health insurance (I do, but assume I don’t as any law is only applied to those who have the inclination to violate it) and the law said I had to but the penalty was nothing and fuck all, I would not buy it. But this court has deemed that this toothless individual mandate is nonetheless so critical to the rest of the provisions that the rest of the provisions must fall because surely no Congress would want them to stand without an individual mandate with a $0 tax. However, that is EXACTLY what Congress did. I don’t see where the Judge addresses that except in broad language. Congress has passed the ACA with an individual mandate with no penalties. Remove the individual mandate entirely and it is still the same as a law with no penalties. As stated above, if the state legislature says you may not drive more than 70mph, but so long as you are not driving 100mph or more, the fine is $0 with $0 in court costs and no points on your license and police may not pull you over and no insurance may increase your rates, and we really mean it no penalties at all, is this really any different than setting a 100mph speed limit? I think not. The court seems to think somehow it does. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2018, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/50 "2018-12-18T14:59:58Z")
n/m ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/51 "2018-12-18T21:49:53Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose Congress had passed the current version of the ACA from scratch, rather than amending the previously existing ACA. The question of severability wouldn’t exist, because they wouldn’t have severed anything. Would the law be constitutional in that case? That is why I was trying to get at, but it is hard to think of a case because I do not know of any other law that prescribes absolutely no penalty, nor imposes any tax for violating it. If the feds outlawed chewing bubble gum, but explicitly said that there were no penalties, no taxes, the police could not stop you if they saw you chewing bubble gum, etc. then is there really a law against chewing bubble gum? (Let’s also assume that it is universally agreed that the feds cannot outlaw the chewing of bubblegum directly, but may only tax its use; and Congress has chosen a tax rate of $0). I suppose that one could argue that his internal moral compass directs him to obey all laws regardless if there is a penalty or not, but how does a court redress a moral objection? Does the judge act like God and decree that the plaintiff can go home and sleep peacefully? But my main objection is that the judge cannot say that this toothless mandate is crucial to the survival of the other provisions, and that Congress would not have enacted the other provisions without the mandate. But, it did just that by gutting the individual mandate. The court cannot say that the individual mandate is critical when there are no penalties for violating it; people who don’t want to obey the law won’t obey the law if there are no penalties. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/52 "2019-12-19T01:26:20Z")
> [@](#): > > A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate provision is unconstitutional but punted on deciding whether the rest of the landmark health-care law should be tossed out. > > The court, in a 2 to 1 decision, is also ordering a lower court judge to reconsider whether ACA, more commonly known as Obamacare, should remain intact. > > “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power,” the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling said. “On the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist.” > > “It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded,” the majority said. “It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not.” > **[US appeals court rules Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional, leaves...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/appeals-court-rules-obamacare-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-but-leaves-law-intact-for-now.html)** > > Texas and other Republican-led states brought the suit, which was defended by Democratic-led states and the House of Representatives. Other articles: > **[Obamacare Insurance Mandate Is Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/health/obamacare-mandate.html)** > > But the judges sent the case back to determine if other parts of the federal health care law can stand without the mandate. > **[Appeals court rules Affordable Care Act insurance mandate unconstitutional,...](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-18/appeals-court-affordable-care-act-unconstitutional)** > > A federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled against one part of the Affordable Care Act — but in a narrow ruling that does not, for now, overturn other parts of the sweeping 2010 healthcare law. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-affordable-care-acts-individual-insurance-mandate-is-unconstitutional-11576709076](https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-affordable-care-acts-individual-insurance-mandate-is-unconstitutional-11576709076) ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/53 "2019-12-19T01:34:57Z")
Which lower court judge? The same republican operative who ruled it unconstitutional in the first place? Because if so, we’re fucked. 20-30 million people will lose their insurance. Ah well. Maybe in 20 years the democrats will pass another spineless half measure to fix our broken health care system. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/54 "2019-12-19T02:40:04Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Which lower court judge? The same republican operative who ruled it unconstitutional in the first place? … The case will go back to the same federal circuit court judge who heard the initial case and made the ruling that was on appeal. He now must apply instructions from the appeals court to reevaluate whether the mandate is severable (thus leaving the rest of the ACA intact) and if so, to what extent. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/55 "2019-12-19T02:54:26Z")
So, are we losing the ACA or will it just go to the Supreme Court? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/56 "2019-12-19T02:58:26Z")
From what I read, no cite, it gets punted likely until after the election. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/57 "2019-12-19T10:06:06Z")
> [@medstar](#): > > I don’t understand why Republicans are so against the ACA. People are required to have auto insurance before they can drive on public streets and get ticketed if they don’t have auto insurance. Health insurance should be treated the same way. Fine, but IMO it shouldn’t be a _federal_ law. Let each state decide whether or not to impose a penalty. ---
**Author:** ![Kovitlac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kovitlac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kovitlac)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/58 "2019-12-19T20:09:58Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > Fuck that judge sideways and fuck “Individual 1” for not defending it after he lied to his fans/voters/MAGAts/deplorables that he wanted to leave it in place. Of course I was sure that was a lie even back then, and a lot of his MAGAts probably cheer the idea of those with diabetes, heart disease, and cancer being thrown on the side of the road to die on a piece of cardboard, but some of them actually believed him. How can they not see it? Even now they don’t. My dad got his insulin a lot cheaper before Obamacare was ever a thing. I’m pretty indifferent to whether it exists or not, but financially penalizing people who can’t afford it is a bullshit practice that never should have been implemented in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Kovitlac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kovitlac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kovitlac)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/59 "2019-12-19T20:23:42Z")
> [@medstar](#): > > I don’t understand why Republicans are so against the ACA. People are required to have auto insurance before they can drive on public streets and get ticketed if they don’t have auto insurance. Health insurance should be treated the same way. Wtf? How does me not having health insurance (I do, but let’s just say I don’t) hurt YOU? Nobody WANTS to go without insurance, so if they are, it’s because they simply can’t afford it. I was in the boat when I was working part-time. Going without insurance was scary and something I’d love to never risk happening again. But I can’t opt out of health concerns the same way you can opt out of owning a car. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159/60 "2019-12-19T20:29:44Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > GOP attitudes about the ACA (Obamacare) seem to me to be similar to how British conservatives view the Brexit plan; they hate it but don’t have any better idea. It’s not that they hate the plan; they hate the originator. It’s all about erasing Obama’s legacy, regardless of the harm to the people they supposedly represent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-now-invalid/826159.md?page=4)