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.
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?
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
Congratulations on your ability to grind your own axe, Bone!
:rolleyes:
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.
n/m
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.
Other articles:
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.
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.
So, are we losing the ACA or will it just go to the Supreme Court?
From what I read, no cite, it gets punted likely until after the election.
Fine, but IMO it shouldn’t be a federal law. Let each state decide whether or not to impose a penalty.
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.
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.
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.