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…
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.
That’s not how things work, though. The 2010 Congress, in passing the original PPACA, declared the two inseverable. However, the 2017 Congress saw fit to eliminate the individual mandate. The 2010 Congress cannot bind the actions of future Congresses. The 2017 Congress was perfectly in their rights to eliminate the mandate, and nothing that the 2010 Congress did can stop that. In other words, the 2010 Congress said that they are inseverable, but the actions of the 2017 Congress in amending the PPACA say otherwise, and it would be the actions of the last Congress to amend this part of the law that would take priority in determining severability.
It’s also worth noting that the legislative tool used to repeal the individual mandate was reconciliation. Under the rules they were operating under, they could only pass a bill related to taxes and spending. They could not repeal any other provisions of the PPACA other than the mandate (because the mandate was technically a tax). If the change to the mandate is deemed to be unconstitutional, I do not see how their can be any response other than to restore the mandate. Otherwise Congress would have repealed the PPACA in its entirely without going through the proper legislative channels.
I was right there with you until your second paragraph. AFAICT, the fact that the PPACA would not and could not work without the mandate was, or should have been, common knowledge amongst lawmakers: it was written into the language of the Act and referenced in two SCOTUS decisions about the PPACA.
I’m not at all sure what you mean by “without going thru the proper legislative channels”; doesn’t Congress have the power of taxation? If the PPACA was an elaborate tax, then doing away with it is their business, isn’t it?
Now admittedly, I’m no legal scholar, healthcare scholar, and barely a scholar of English lit, plus I’ve had a few pours of wine tonight, but I think this is the argument:
-The PPACA is constitutional only with the mandate/tax.
-The legislature didn’t have the votes to repeal the PPACA, but did have the votes via reconciliation to repeal the mandate/tax.
-*Only *the repeal of the mandate/tax makes the PPACA unconstitutional. (*With *the mandate/tax in place it’s been deemed Constitutional.)
-Therefore, it was *unconstitutional *to repeal the mandate/tax. Congress’ action in 2017 made the PPACA unconstitutional. So the only thing that should be overturned is their repeal of the mandate/tax, NOT the law that was passed by the 2010 Congress.
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.
No analogy is perfect; but I believe that, if you choose to so drive, you’re required to have liability insurance — because you may hit me, in which case I want you to pay my bills. And depending on how you feel about your own bills, you have the option of also buying yourself some insurance, if you want, I guess.
No one if forcing you to obtain a drivers license and drive a car so therefore no one is forcing you to buy auto insurance. Driving is a privilege. By contrast the act of mere living is not a privilege. What’s the alternative if don’t want to be forced to buy health insurance? Killing yourself?
It is not a really complicated tax. The individual mandate was a tax. However other parts like Medicaid expansion, or pre-existing conditions protections are not taxes. That is why Congress could get rid of the mandate through reconciliation but not all of the PPACA.
There is also the issue that if I total my car, it can go to a junkyard and no one much will care. Can the same be told of an un/underinsured person with a recently diagnosed illness that is expensive to treat?
Do we treat the un/underinsured as though they are damaged or broken down cars, not worth fixing so should be discarded?
Also, many, many people are required to have full coverage, as part of the loan terms on their car, as the bank is very aware that some situation could come up and leave you unable or unwilling to keep paying on the loan. The bank has a vested interest in the well being of your car, similar to how the government has a vested interest in the health of its citizenry.
There are no other parts, is the thing. The Medicaid expansion was the only “other” part of the Act, if I’m understanding this correctly. It was the only thing that was severable from the mandate by design. So it appears to me that this ruling says “okay, if that was the design, and the new law knows that and removes the mandate, they must have known the two weren’t severable and so the intent was to make the PPACA invalid”. The court is affirming that the removal of that mandate did, in fact, make the rest of the PPACA invalid.
I hope you’re mistaken about the relationship between citizen and government.
That bank can tell a guy to do X and Y and Z because he asked for a loan and heard what he’d have to do in exchange; I’ve asked no such bank for no such loan, and as far as I know I can reply to a bank telling me to do X or Y or Z by telling them to go screw themselves. You know, until and unless I sign on for that.
I don’t believe I’m currently serving in the military. When I was, they for some reason kept giving me paychecks, and I for some reason kept saluting folks and hastily doing A and B and C when they told me to do it — which, since they had an unusual interest in me then, included What I’d Consume and When I’d Exercise.
I’d signed on for that, back when. I worked for them, back when.
As far as I know, I’m now a guy who says “no, I don’t work for the government; the government is supposed to work for me.” As far as I know, I’m now a guy who can reply, if told to Eat Right and Exercise More, by saying “no, I’m — wait, are you from the bank I don’t have a loan with, or the military I’m not serving in? It doesn’t much matter either way: you can but make me an offer I’m free to accept or reject; and, just between us, I’m not big on ‘accepting’ right now.”
I really don’t understand Americans. It seems like chaos now. (Sorry, love you guys and always got treated the absolute best as a tourist)
But. You spend literally a year and a half having elections that cost the GDP of India to send over 500 people to congress, spend months passing a law, and then some rube in Texas has the power to strike it down.
I don’t think Medicaid for all is the solution, because it would cost to much. Not that it wouldn’t be worth it, but too many Americans would fight it that it would eventually fail. Even if it could be passed, too many people would want to kill it that they’d vote in people who would kill it.
What instead might work is to increase Medicaid taxes, but use it to create a new kind of insurance that only kicks in once your health expenses hit a very high level relative to your income. So maybe 50% or 75% of the household’s income. This insurance would be to prevent catastrophic illnesses from bankrupting the family. It wouldn’t be for the more mundane and ordinary things that come up. Those more minor expenses would still need to be covered out-of-pocket by the family. So essentially, it’s like an HSA health plan with 0% coverage until an extremely high deductible kicks in. And once it kicks in, you’d be responsible for a percentage based on your income. So if you were poor, you would be responsible for 0%. But if you were rich, you might still be on the hook for 20%.
In addition, it should only cover things that are life-threatening. Not things like abortion, birth control, lap band, gym memberships, etc. Including that kind of stuff is just providing ammo for people who want to kill the coverage.
The reason I think something like this might work is because:
It’s an expansion of Medicaid taxes, which is already allowed
The coverage wouldn’t kick in until expenses are very high, which will keep the price of coverage low
Hi Opal, who might still be here to read this if she had access to proper healthcare
Whatever health care system we eventually come up with, it has to be something which will withstand the hordes of people who are upset about it for one reason or another. I think if the Dems try to create a quality type of universal health care, enough people will try to kill it that it won’t last. Instead, create a minimum level of coverage that acts as a safety net which can be expanded at a later time.
In my state the law on going slightly over the speed limit is restricted to prevent speed traps. If pulled over by a state trooper going less than 5 over, no penalty. Pulled over by a local cop going less than 10 over, no penalty. You can still get a ticket (rarely done) but no fine or points consequences.
But they can still pull you over. Check license and registration, ticket you for no seatbelt on, etc.
No judge would throw out a “no insurance” ticket just because your were only going a couple mph over due to not being a “legal stop”.
Tons of laws are like this. I have no idea what “logic” the judge was using.
I’m still thinking my own way through it.