Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act

[Disraeli]

Well everybody head to the emergency rooms.

Thanks to Ronald Rayguns they can't turn you down.

 

[zimmer]

There aren't rules on this site for people who alter other's quotes?

Not in that manner.

The alterations by “the editor” are clearly noted for all to see.

There is zero attempt to deceive... only to make a point in a creative manner.

Been doing this when warranted, for about a decade.

It’s effective... No?

 

[zimmer]

Ah, so Republicans failed 3 times to repeal Obama care, but they could just repeal one bit of it and effectively repeal the whole thing? That doesn't sound right.

I assume since Republicans removed the individual mandate, the thing that Big Insurance said would help them keep costs down, they basically ****ed us yet again? Thanks Republicans, your governance is ****.

If you pull out the foundation from under a house, and do not fortify said house in any manner, does it defy gravity and still stand?

The Careless (un)Affordable Care Act (CACA) was right out of the ****hole Republic Handbook.

Thanks Obama.

With that... Obama’s legacy is truly reduced to a set of Parker pens. ROTFLOL... Or did he use pens produced by one of the socialist ****holes he so admires?

 

[zimmer]

I saw this picture on another site. It is appropriate, I think.

View attachment 67246055

ROTFLOL... the great bit in that is Dumbo’s ears.

I think the creator of that photo-montage scaled them down so we could see the fate of the Obama-Hindenburg.

 

[Tangmo]

The ACA in it's entirety is nearly 11,000 pages, that's 3 feet tall if printed out. Who read 11,000 pages? You? I surely didn't and I highly doubt any of our lawmakers did.
That said, there are parts of it I can agree with, but also parts I don't. IMO, a bipartisan committee should review it and remove the BS. With 11,000 pages, there's got to be a lot of BS in it.

Conservatives/Republicans put "Death Panels" in it that weren't there. The Right also put it into a "Death Sprial" that itself fell dead. And so on such as the fact no one can trust or believe the party that voted 50 times to repeal the whole of it.

A bipartisan committee would be Democrats and Republicans appointed by the White House, the Senate and the House; it might include some governors or former governors/elected officials. Each appointing authority customarily has appointments from the public sector civil society to include academia and the like. In short you're talking a three ring circus. A nonpartisan committee would look the same except they'd have the false imprimatur of being independent.

As we see in election after election btw so-called independents vote with the base of the party that is carrying the day on the issues and concerns, or the divide is 49-51 for the winner. It's also the case the only people who read any bill or law are the lawyers. Everyone else gets their summary. For members of the house and senate each bill is summarized by the Congressional Research Service which Congress established at the Library of Congress to do the details, to include subsequent amendments. CRS reports and summaries are available to the general public so maybe you might consider getting one of ACA. Urgently plse thx.

 

[Arby]

Conservatives/Republicans put "Death Panels" in it that weren't there. The Right also put it into a "Death Sprial" that itself fell dead. And so on such as the fact no one can trust or believe the party that voted 50 times to repeal the whole of it.

A bipartisan committee would be Democrats and Republicans appointed by the White House, the Senate and the House; it might include some governors or former governors/elected officials. Each appointing authority customarily has appointments from the public sector civil society to include academia and the like. In short you're talking a three ring circus. A nonpartisan committee would look the same except they'd have the false imprimatur of being independent.

As we see in election after election btw so-called independents vote with the base of the party that is carrying the day on the issues and concerns, or the divide is 49-51 for the winner. It's also the case the only people who read any bill or law are the lawyers. Everyone else gets their summary. For members of the house and senate each bill is summarized by the Congressional Research Service which Congress established at the Library of Congress to do the details, to include subsequent amendments. CRS reports and summaries are available to the general public so maybe you might consider getting one of ACA. Urgently plse thx.

So you disagree it should be revised?

 

[Mr Person]

So, one federal judge overturns what the Supreme Court decided in 2011 -- that the ACA was constitutional and the mandate was a legitimate tax that Congress has a right to authorize.

No, that is not what happened.

The mandate tax penalty was previously upheld under the legislature's tax and spend authority. The Trump tax cuts got rid of that tax penalty (as of 1/19). Therefore, the reason the law was previously upheld by SCOTUS no longer exists.

The court did not "overturn what the Supreme Court decided"

 

[Chomsky]

One thing that comes off the top of my head is this: And enormous amount of new taxes, fees, etc.

Here's a list of 11 things that are bad about Obamacare. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-wrong-with-obamacare-3306076 The mandate is one of them. That leaves 10 more that this site came up with.

Here's the one about the taxes:



In any case, a simple internet search (I used Bing) came up with numerous articles that present all kinds of reasons why Obamacare is bad.

Here's another one: https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/05/news/economy/why-people-hate-obamacare/index.html

Thanks for the efforts.

Well besides the mandate, which has been made essentially moot without the penalty, these negatives listed above seem trivial in relation to the benefits.

 

[Chomsky]

No, that is not what happened.

The mandate tax penalty was previously upheld under the legislature's tax and spend authority. The Trump tax cuts got rid of that tax penalty (as of 1/19). Therefore, the reason the law was previously upheld by SCOTUS no longer exists.

The court did not "overturn what the Supreme Court decided"

I must admit that in legal terms, that was a nice little end-run done by the administration.

 

[Mycroft]

Thanks for the efforts.

Well besides the mandate, which has been made essentially moot without the penalty, these negatives listed above seem trivial in relation to the benefits.

That would be a matter of opinion.

Personally, I think the benefits are enormously outweighed by the increase in government control over an entire industry.

 

[slick]

Even Roberts won't be able to revive Obamacare now. McCain's last efforts to screw the people
who voted him into office lasted for less than a year!

 

[Chomsky]

That would be a matter of opinion.

Personally, I think the benefits are enormously outweighed by the increase in government control over an entire industry.

I think the industry is in need of control. I'd definitely keep the pre-existing conditions clause, and the kids-stay-on-to-26 clause. But I was against the ACA implementation from the get-go. I'm for a Medicaid-for-all roll-out. Always was.

 

[Manc Skipper]

So the whole thing goes because of the unconstitutional additions by the Republicans. That's a hell of an end run!

 

[Taylor]

I'm at a loss to try and understand why the Republicans are doing this? The tax penalty has been removed? So what's the downside they're getting rid of. Or maybe more interestingly, what's their upside in killing this?

I don't think it will hold up, because the severability argument is flawed - the mandate was an important aspect of Obamacare, but not absolutely essential. But if they truly believe that Obamacare cannot survive without the mandate (which is the basis for the judge ruling the entire thing unconstitutional) they shouldn't care one way or the other if it's held up. I don't think they actually believe that, (nor do I think the Democrats believed that when they made the same argument in 2010).

 

[Greenbeard]

So the whole thing goes because of the unconstitutional additions by the Republicans. That's a hell of an end run!

What would the GOP be doing if it wasn't spending its time devising new ways to take away people's health care?

 

[Chomsky]

I don't think it will hold up, because the severability argument is flawed - the mandate was an important aspect of Obamacare, but not absolutely essential. But if they truly believe that Obamacare cannot survive without the mandate (which is the basis for the judge ruling the entire thing unconstitutional) they shouldn't care one way or the other if it's held up. I don't think they actually believe that, no do I think the Democrats believed that when they made the same argument in 2010).

Fair enough.

But I must point-out enrollment has dropped substantially and consecutively, these last two periods.

 

[vesper]

It was only a matter of time after the mandate was overturned by the legislative branch that a district judge would rule that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

 

[Chomsky]

'

What would the GOP be doing if it wasn't spending its time devising new ways to take away people's health care?

- Taking away peoples' environmental protections?

- Taking away peoples' employment and work-place protections?

- Taking away peoples' democratic & electorate process protections?

They're a busy and hardworking bunch, you know! There's plenty of peoples' things to take away, but they're making excellent progress!

:thumbs:

 

[Tangmo]

So you disagree it should be revised?

My post responded to your post that said erroneously the ACA had 11,000 pages for which erroneous reason you wanted a bipartisan commission because you said no one read it to include the legislators who enacted it. I suggested you might read the summary of the 902 page ACA that is written for members of the House and Senate by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress -- it's available to the public of course. CRS does this with bills, laws, subsequent amendments. ACA is also available in full online. Trump's unsuccessful bill of last year introduced by members of congress was 40 pages which sounds good at a nice small even zero number. The one McCain's vote killed. It could indeed have been written by three right wingers here over beers.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The tax issue has been eliminated. That changes things.

But don't worry, this'll certainly make it to the Supremes again.

Yep, that's the game changer. What remains to be seen is how the folks who are benefiting from the ACA are going to feel about their new found access being taken away.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, that is not what happened.

The mandate tax penalty was previously upheld under the legislature's tax and spend authority. The Trump tax cuts got rid of that tax penalty (as of 1/19). Therefore, the reason the law was previously upheld by SCOTUS no longer exists.

The court did not "overturn what the Supreme Court decided"

The reason does still exist. Roberts argued the individual mandate is constitutional because you have the legal action of not complying with it (in that circumstance you just pay a tax):

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.

That is still the case. Congress reduced the required payment to the IRS to $0 if one chooses to forgo buying insurance, it didn't attach any new negative legal consequences. In other words, you can still legally choose to go without health insurance now, just as you could before.

Indeed, it's even easier now, which was the whole point of the change the GOP made.

 

[Mycroft]

I think the industry is in need of control. I'd definitely keep the pre-existing conditions clause, and the kids-stay-on-to-26 clause. But I was against the ACA implementation from the get-go. I'm for a Medicaid-for-all roll-out. Always was.

I'll accept government control that deals with safety and fraud protection. That's about it.

When the government starts mandating who insurance companies MUST do business with, that's bad. Just the same as when government mandate who hospitals must do business with. It would be just as bad if the government mandated who gas stations must give their gas to...especially if the gas stations must give gas to someone who can't pay for it.

That's the kind of government control that Obamacare has. That's the kind of government control that I oppose.

Medicaid for all? You are talking about jumping from the pan and into the fire, in terms of government control. No thanks.

 

[Mycroft]

Yep, that's the game changer. What remains to be seen is how the folks who are benefiting from the ACA are going to feel about their new found access being taken away.

Yeah. It might suck when they find they have to take responsibility for themselves once again.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yeah. It might suck when they find they have to take responsibility for themselves once again.

It ends up sucking for everyone because people tend not to just opt to get sick and die.

 

[Top Cat]

Editor’s corrections in red:

Don't edit my post. I reported your ass.