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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump will have that for you in two weeks.
I read the opinion myself and I saw it differently. I posted this in another thread a few days ago.
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”.
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.
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.
Well, dang! The thing just won’t die!
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 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.