# The Repeal of Obamacare/ACA: Step-bystep, Inch-by-inch **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 2, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146 "2017-01-02T17:06:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 83
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2020, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1641 "2020-08-09T16:12:15Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > Only would such an EO actually do anything? It was pointed out somewhere here (Not sure by whom) that since there is no language about premium caps, then insurance companies are free to charge someone with pre-existing conditions $100,000 per month for the “plan”. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2020, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1642 "2020-08-09T19:44:41Z")
That was me, I think. The issue isn’t how to provide insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. That’s easy if money is no object. The issue is providing AFFORDABLE insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. So Trump puts out some executive order bullshit that forbids health insurance companies from turning down people with pre-existing conditions. If Obamacare is completely killled, there’s no open enrollment period and no mandate. No one will need to waste their money on insurance premiums when they are healthy, they can wait until they get seriously ill before they buy insurance. If the insurers can’t turn you down, they’ll have to jack the premiums to insane levels. I don’t see how else they coukd make it work. ---
**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:** [June 17, 2021, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1643 "2021-06-17T14:23:27Z")
Saved. For at least four more years, in a 7-2 decision. Effectively, the plaintiffs didn’t have standing. Gorsuch and Alito dissented. 2nd link contains link to PDF of decision. > > ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2021, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1644 "2021-06-17T22:44:46Z")
So a 7-2 split on standing. Was there any comment from either the majority or the dissent regarding the validity of the overall lawsuit (i.e. non-separability of the mandate) in the decision? ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2021, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1645 "2021-06-18T02:46:55Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > So a 7-2 split on standing. Was there any comment from either the majority or the dissent regarding the validity of the overall lawsuit (i.e. non-separability of the mandate) in the decision?   I think it’s tradition in the courts that if you don’t address the merits, then you don’t address the merits. I think they just kinda punted by ruling narrowly on the standing question and not touching the merits. That’s lame. That means it’s still open for someone who can claim standing somehow, to bring the suit again. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2021, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1646 "2021-06-18T17:06:25Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > I think they just kinda punted by ruling narrowly on the standing question and not touching the merits. That’s lame. That means it’s still open for someone who can claim standing somehow, to bring the suit again. I’ve read on other threads that no one has standing, because no one is hurt (in the constitutional sense) by the ACA. If someone has a better policy idea, they should bring it to Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2021, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1647 "2021-06-18T18:49:16Z")
Trump will have that for you in two weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2021, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1648 "2021-06-19T16:51:44Z")
I read the opinion myself and I saw it differently. I posted this in another thread a few days ago. > [@A Perfectly Reasonable Amount of Schadenfreude about Things Happening to Trump & His Enablers (Part 1)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/1823): > > The below is my non-lawyer opinion based on reading the actual SC opinions. > The way I read it, the reason for denying “standing” was that the underlying argument — the idea that the state or _any_ individual suffered damages caused by the law _change_, which eliminated the penalty for _not_ buying insurance- was ridiculous. Ridiculous because the very idea that _eliminating_ the penalty for not buying insurance would cause _more_ people to buy insurance (which the states might have to partially subsidize) was completely counterintuitive and absurd. And stupid. > > It didn’t seem like that much of a dodge to me, frankly — the reason for lawsuits is to redress an injury and the Supremes majority seemed to want to remind everyone that you can’t just ask the Supremes to declare something unconstitutional _just_ so you can run around saying “this is unconstitutional”. They said as much in the ruling. > > It seems like a handy precedent to set, one that might come in handy in the future. I’m not too bothered by their failure to rule on the constitutionality of the $0 mandate, that’s not a core liberal issue by any means- in fact, it was a piece of Republican performance art - let’s make an unconstitutional change to the law, then take it through the court system to get the whole thing thrown out. I’m glad they basically rejected the scheme instead of ruling on the $0 mandate. > > Usually, I think that refusing to rule on standing is a bit of a cop-out, but I don’t agree in this case. I think they took an important stand against political theatre. > > The minority opinion basically came down to “I don’t like this law yet I’ve had to vote not to kill it twice already, I’m done with “rescuing” it (rescuing it from destruction by frivolous lawsuit, I guess). The minority does think the _law itself_ is unconstitutional because it damages red states by requiring them to spend some of their own money on poor people - which is an interpretation that wouldn’t bode well for Medicaid or public education,BTW. > > Thomas voted with the majority but signed on to part of the Alito rant that masqueraded as a legal opinion - I assume he did this, at least in part, so his Q-crazed wife wouldn’t beat him up. > > I think the majority shot down what was basically a political stunt, and set some precedent that might help shoot down similar stunts in the future. The way I read it, the majority opinion _assumed_ severability throughout their ruling by ONLY considering the opposing viewpoints in light of the allegedly unconstitutional _change_ to law, not the entirety of the law. Basically, the argument seemed to come down to — “Eliminating the enforcement of the penalty hasn’t damaged anyone and has absolutely no potential to damage anyone ever, we only hear REAL cases and controversies. Go away”. I would love to know if I’m reading this wrong or if I missed something (any lawyers want to weigh in?), but this seemed like a pretty great outcome to me. The majority opinion is dryly snarky in places, at one point referring to the plaintiff’s “novel alternative legal theory”. > **[19-840\_6jfm.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf)** > > 295.96 KB Now, I do think the Supremes punted a little bit on the Philadelphia foster care case, but I found the punt itself interesting. I’m wondering if that was the court pushing back on the attempts to politicize _everything_, and maybe they were trying to show some unity by coming up with a unanimous decision on what had the potential to be a controversial case. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2021, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1649 "2021-06-22T00:56:16Z")
I think the other advantage of the ruling being about standing, is that it basically says that all of the states can just sit down and shut up about trying to declare the ACA unconstitutional. It isn’t about the law or your individual case. Its about you. So if six months down the road you come up with some other little glitch that you want to pretend makes the ACA invalid, you still won’t be granted standing and the same thing will happen, so you’re better off just staying home. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2021, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146/1650 "2021-07-15T13:27:56Z")
Well, dang! The thing just won’t die! > **[More than 2M signed up for health plans - San Antonio Express, 7/15/2021](https://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/ODN/SanAntonioExpressNews/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=SAEN%2F2021%2F07%2F15&entity=Ar01606&sk=E3818C7E&mode=text)** > > San Antonio Express - 7/15/2021 > More than 2 million people have signed up for subsidized health insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act since President Joe Biden reopened health insurance markets this year as part of his pandemic response plan. > > The Department of Health and Human Services says 1.5 million enrolled through the federal [HealthCare.gov](http://HealthCare.gov) marketplace while another 600,000 signed up through state-run insurance exchanges. > > Since April 1, all “Obamacare” customers have been eligible for much more generous financial assistance with their coverage, a temporary benefit boost that Biden and congressional Democrats hope to make permanent later this year. > > The current special enrollment period is scheduled to end on Aug. 15. But HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra hinted Biden may revisit the issue and decide to extend the deadline. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-repeal-of-obamacare-aca-step-bystep-inch-by-inch/776146.md?page=82)