U.S. federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[rooster59]

U.S. federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

 

A sign on an insurance store advertises Obamacare in San Ysidro, San Diego, California, U.S., October 26, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake

 

(Reuters) - A federal judge in Texas on Friday ruled the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, was unconstitutional based on its mandate requiring that people buy health insurance, a decision in a case that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of 20 states that a change in tax law last year eliminating a penalty for not having health insurance invalidated the entire Obamacare law.

 

The coalition of states challenging the law was led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, both Republicans.

 

Republicans have opposed the 2010 law - the signature domestic policy achievement of Republican President Donald Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama - since its inception and have repeatedly tried and failed to repeal it.

 

O'Connor ruled that under the logic of the landmark 2012 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law, the individual mandate, which required that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a tax, is now unconstitutional.

 

In the 2012 ruling, a majority of the justices concluded that the individual mandate unconstitutionally imposed a requirement that Americans buy insurance. However, a different majority held the mandate amounted to a constitutional tax penalty.

 

On Friday, O'Connor ruled that after Trump signed a $1.5 trillion tax bill passed by Congress last year that eliminated the penalties, the individual mandate could no longer be considered constitutional.

 

He said because the individual mandate was an "essential" part of Obamacare, the entire law, rather than just the individual mandate, was unconstitutional.

 

"In some ways, the question before the Court involves the intent of both the 2010 and 2017 Congresses," he wrote. "The former enacted the ACA. The latter sawed off the last leg it stood on."

 

O'Connor's decision was issued the day before the end of a 45-day sign-up period for 2019 health coverage under the law.

 

About 11.8 million consumers nationwide enrolled in 2018 Obamacare exchange plans, according to the U.S. government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

 

A spokeswoman for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was among a group of Democratic attorneys general defending the law, said they would appeal the decision. An appeal would go to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement the law would remain in place pending its expected appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Trump hailed the ruling and called on Congress to act. "Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions," Trump said in a tweet.

 

U.S. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he hoped the decision would be overturned.

 

"If this awful ruling is upheld in the higher courts, it will be a disaster for tens of millions of American families, especially for people with pre-existing conditions," Schumer said in a statement.

 

In June, the Justice Department partially sided with the Republican state attorneys general, agreeing that the individual mandate must be struck down as unconstitutional but arguing several other provisions could survive.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-15

[lovelomsak]

Checks and balances is what I think I often hear when judges make ruling concerning government actions.

  This time I think people will start to see the problem with judges having so much power. 

  It is nice to use against those you do not like but not so rosy with you get your fingers slapped.

[Jingthing]

Well, here we go.

If this ruling stands, and it certainly might, the basis for it possibly being upheld is the Individual-1/republican toxic action to remove the ACA mandate. 

The bill indeed did depend on the ACA mandate to support the program. 

So legally speaking, I can see the logic of this ruling. Unfortunately. 

Elections have consequences. 

If this stands a very significant portion of the people that voted in Individual-1 will be losing their access to healthcare. Either via an ACA exchange policy or expanded Medicare (also a part of the ACA).

Tragically, a lot of the ignorant voters for Individual-1 voiced their happiness with the ACA but that they hated Obamacare and wanted it killed.

ACA and Obamacare are exactly the SAME thing.

Again, elections have consequences and so does ignorance.

As Individual-1 might say -- sad.

But he isn't. Instead he is celebrating this ruling.

[stevenl]

ObamaCare was a half product. And yes, it has been eroded, was not ideal and is now far from ideal, but still better than nothing.

 

But USA should have universal health care, asap.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

ObamaCare was a half product. And yes, it has been eroded, was not ideal and is now far from ideal, but still better than nothing.

 

But USA should have universal health care, asap.

Yes of course it's not ideal.

But you're smoking something very strong if you think the Individual-1 controlled senate and the Individual-1 controlled white house is going to pass anything resembling universal health care that the house might put forward.

This development if upheld (very possible) is tragic and will result in countless unnecessary premature deaths of American citizens.

Yet Individual-1 is celebrating. What kind of "morality" is it when the top leader celebrates the prospect of many millions of citizens losing their access to health care? To think of it is truly SICK making.

 

Quote

Wow, but not surprisingly, ObamaCare was just ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a highly respected judge in Texas. Great news for America!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1073763695807877120

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Jingthing

[bkkcanuck8]

The Supreme Court has already ruled it was constitutional (of which I did not necessarily agree completely with it - but it was a decision made by the Supreme Court), as such unless there is new facts (which I doubt) I expect it to be overturned by an Appeals court and then the Supreme Court not hearing it.

 

The judge (likely because of his own politics) is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling... i.e. going rogue.

Edited December 15, 2018 by bkkcanuck8

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The Supreme Court has already ruled it was constitutional (of which I did not necessarily agree completely with it - but it was a decision made by the Supreme Court), as such unless there is new facts (which I doubt) I expect it to be overturned by an Appeals court and then the Supreme Court not hearing it.

 

The judge (likely because of his own politics) is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling... i.e. going rogue.

It's not that simple.

That's because the original ruling saw the mandate as a kind of tax saying the mandate wasn't legal but if you call it a tax, it is. 

Now that the mandate "tax" is gone, that original ruling is being called into question.

I can't predict where this is going but I think your confidence is not warranted at this time.

[bkkcanuck8]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's not that simple.

That's because the original ruling saw the mandate as a kind of tax saying the mandate wasn't legal but if you call it a tax, it is. 

Now that the mandate "tax" is gone, that original ruling is being called into question.

I can't predict where this is going but I think your confidence is not warranted at this time.

The Obamacare law has not been repealed and replaced -- that law went to the Supreme Court and was ruled constitutional.  If a successive law changed it somehow to make it unconstitutional overall - it is that law that is unconstitutional -- not the Obamacare law itself.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The Supreme Court has already ruled it was constitutional (of which I did not necessarily agree completely with it - but it was a decision made by the Supreme Court), as such unless there is new facts (which I doubt) I expect it to be overturned by an Appeals court and then the Supreme Court not hearing it.

As the article says there was a change in the law which allowed this judge to go ahead and declare it unconstitutional. It doesn't mean it was a sound decision. Everybody who had followed the case expected the judge to make this ruling. He's very right wing. It was also being predicted that he would sit on his decision until after the election because he knew what strong ammunition it gives to the Democrats. 

 

If the decision is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court it can be expected that a large number of Republican voters with pre-existing conditions will become ex-Republicans. And some Republican senators who voted to ratify the nominations of  Gorsuch and Kavanagh (who presumably will vote in support of the judge's decision) are going to have serious problems at the next election.

 

And there won't be problems for Republicans just on the Federal level. What the article didn't explicitly say is that it was only Republican AG's who signed on in support. Not one Democrate. So, if this decision stands there will also be lots of problems for Republicans at the state level as well. Of course, there will be an increased mortality rate for these ex-Republican invalids, so should lessen the electoral damage a bit.

 

As for Republicans protecting people with pre-existing conditions, given their past form this is extremely dubious. They claimed to have tried to pass a bill that would protect such people. In fact what the bill said was that such persons couldn't be excluded from buying health insurance but the health insurer could refuse to cover them for pre-existing conditions. Some protection.

 

In fact, Obamacare is constructed the way it is because it's the only way to protect people with pre-existing conditions and still have a private health insurance system in the USA. It works just fine in many countries around the world

[Thaidream]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

es of course it's not ideal.

But you're smoking something very strong if you think the Individual-1 controlled senate and the Individual-1 controlled white house is going to pass anything resembling universal health care that the house might put forward.

This development if upheld (very possible) is tragic and will result in countless unnecessary premature deaths of American citizens.

Yet Individual-1 is celebrating. What kind of "morality" is it when the top leader celebrates the prospect of many millions of citizens losing their access to health care? To think of it is truly SICK making.

Individual 1- aka- Donald Trump may not be able to  do anything if the Mueller report and the Southern District of NY are able to name him as either a co-conspirator in either an obstruction of justice case; a collusion case or other criminal cases in which he is indicted.

While I agree that as long as Trump is in power and the Republicans hold the Senate- it would be difficult to get Medicare for All which is Universal Healthcare.

 

However, i can see a situation in which all loopholes for Trump to slither out of possible impeachment are closed and both his daughter; sons and son in law are possibly  either indicted or indicted co-conspirators.   This could mean a situation in which his Republican supports start to realize the 'game' is up and possibly vote for a conviction under impeachment.

 

At this point- a group will visit Trump- forcing him to resign with an affirmation from Mike Pence that a pardon will come forth.  With Pence in power and Republicans reeling from the Trump years and the Democrats nominating a potential President such as  Biden or Sanders- it just might be possible for  Universal healthcare to be voted in.  The majority of Americans want it and if it is not voted on before the 2020 election- it will become the main issue of the 2020 election.

 

The downside is if Trump refuses to resign and tries to fight on- trying to get his base out on the streets- and paralyzes the governing process.  I shudder when I think about all the further damage this man can bring to all of us and the Nation.

[Boon Mee]

It should never have been passed in the first place. 

[Spidey]

14 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The Supreme Court has already ruled it was constitutional (of which I did not necessarily agree completely with it - but it was a decision made by the Supreme Court), as such unless there is new facts (which I doubt) I expect it to be overturned by an Appeals court and then the Supreme Court not hearing it.

 

The judge (likely because of his own politics) is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling... i.e. going rogue.

Unfortunately, even if it's overturned by the appeals cout it could still end up with the supreme court. Since the previous ruling Trump has "fixed" the Supreme Court who will now undoubtedly uphold the Texas ruling.

[stevenl]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes of course it's not ideal.

But you're smoking something very strong if you think the Individual-1 controlled senate and the Individual-1 controlled white house is going to pass anything resembling universal health care that the house might put forward.

This development if upheld (very possible) is tragic and will result in countless unnecessary premature deaths of American citizens.

Yet Individual-1 is celebrating. What kind of "morality" is it when the top leader celebrates the prospect of many millions of citizens losing their access to health care? To think of it is truly SICK making.

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1073763695807877120

 

"But you're smoking something very strong if you think the Individual-1 controlled senate and the Individual-1 controlled white house is going to pass anything resembling universal health care that the house might put forward."

Where did I say or imply that?

 

USA needs universal healthcare.

[stevenl]

28 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The Obamacare law has not been repealed and replaced -- that law went to the Supreme Court and was ruled constitutional.  If a successive law changed it somehow to make it unconstitutional overall - it is that law that is unconstitutional -- not the Obamacare law itself.

Think you're wrong here.

 

The law changes have made Obamacare unconstitutional. And I expect it will be upheld, and maybe even should be upheld because there are major flaws in the law.

 

Only real solution is universal health care.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"But you're smoking something very strong if you think the Individual-1 controlled senate and the Individual-1 controlled white house is going to pass anything resembling universal health care that the house might put forward."

Where did I say or imply that?

 

USA needs universal healthcare.

Yes it does. But in the real world which is something that I think it's useful to stay rooted in these days of fake news and "truth isn't truth" it would practically mean the democrats taking over the entire government including the supreme court which is now fully politicized and I don't see that happening anytime even close to soon. So for now, preserving the ACA is pretty much the best that can be done in the short term. 

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

It should never have been passed in the first place. 

Most Americans disagree with you.

[bkkcanuck8]

19 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Unfortunately, even if it's overturned by the appeals cout it could still end up with the supreme court. Since the previous ruling Trump has "fixed" the Supreme Court who will now undoubtedly uphold the Texas ruling.

Gorsuch was an excellent choice for the Supreme Court (IMHO), the fact that he was chosen by President Trump should not invalidate that.  Kavanagh should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.  Even so Kavanagh has already shown his hand that the bar is pretty high to reverse a previous precedent. 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Think you're wrong here.

 

The law changes have made Obamacare unconstitutional. And I expect it will be upheld, and maybe even should be upheld because there are major flaws in the law.

 

Only real solution is universal health care.

Any of those flaws could easily have been corrected if the Republicans weren't so determined to repeal it and not improve it. The fact is it is a huge improvement over the situation that existed before. Just ask people with pre-existing conditions what they think of it.

[Spidey]

Just now, bkkcanuck8 said:

Gorsuch was an excellent choice for the Supreme Court (IMHO), the fact that he was chosen by President Trump should not invalidate that.  Kavanagh should never have been elevated to the Supreme Court.  Even so Kavanagh has already shown his hand that the bar is pretty high to reverse a previous precedent. 

Even so Trump will be calling all favours in on this one. Expect the Supreme Court to toe the line this time.

[bkkcanuck8]

Just now, Spidey said:

Even so Trump will be calling all favours in on this one. Expect the Supreme Court to toe the line this time.

So you are saying that all justices raised to the supreme court can have those favours returned?  It is a lifetime appointment, they can now give him the raspberry.

[bristolboy]

I believe that this decision will also invalidate the Medicaid provisions which have provided so much help to poorer Americans. If I'm right, this should be a huge wake-up call to formerly Democratic states like West Virginia where Obamacare has been a huge success. And other  rural areas where high percentages of Trump voters depend on Medicaid for their health care.

[Chomper Higgot]

The Republicans will come to regret the day they branded the ACA as ‘Obamacare’.

 

It is hugely popular and will lead America along the path to universal health care.

[mtls2005]

Given that Health Care was the number 1 issue in the mid-terms it seems odd that the Republican States AGs continue to push forward on these ACA suits?

 

(I realize that these suits had been brought in an earlier time when it looked like the ACA was low-hanging fruit.)

 

I guess if you want to completely decimate the Republican Party then, by all means, proceed.

[scorecard]

29 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes it does. But in the real world which is something that I think it's useful to stay rooted in these days of fake news and "truth isn't truth" it would practically mean the democrats taking over the entire government including the supreme court which is now fully politicized and I don't see that happening anytime even close to soon. So for now, preserving the ACA is pretty much the best that can be done in the short term. 

 

Also meaning that Americans should hang their heads in shame that universal healthcare wasn't started 40 years ago (comment not meant as a specific criticism of you Jingthing).

 

It works in numerous other countries, sure at first some teething problems but eventually running smoothly and bringing good healthcare with little waiting times to everybody, free or at very low cost. Also meaning we all care for each other. 

 

I wonder if there's another angle on this. The majority of Americans seen to see socialism / socialist policies / part socialist / part capitalist economy etc., as dangerous, even evil.

 

These folks seem to have their heads well buried in the sand of 50 / 100 years ago and still see communism / socialism as reds under the bed ready to steal our children, monitor our every minute with special police, people disappearing to forced labour camps etc etc. Time for these folks to get educated about the world today.    

 

 

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

wonder if there's another angle on this. The majority of Americans seen to see socialism / socialist policies / part socialist / part capitalist economy etc., as dangerous, even evil.

 

These folks seem to have their heads well buried in the sand of 50 / 100 years ago and still see communism / socialism as reds under the bed ready to steal our children, monitor our every minute with special police, people disappearing to forced labour camps etc etc. Time for these folks to get educated about the world today.    

Yes, you would think that this particularly applies to Trump's base. However, he has constantly lauded Russia and Putin since the days of his candidature. Even did the "I love my best friend Kim Jong Il" thing.

 

Doesn't seem to have adversely affected his base. Weird.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Spidey

[Jingthing]

55 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I believe that this decision will also invalidate the Medicaid provisions which have provided so much help to poorer Americans. If I'm right, this should be a huge wake-up call to formerly Democratic states like West Virginia where Obamacare has been a huge success. And other  rural areas where high percentages of Trump voters depend on Medicaid for their health care.

It has nothing to do with "traditional" Medicaid. But it is definitely linked to EXPANDED Medicaid which is an integral part of the ACA law.

[Jingthing]

31 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Given that Health Care was the number 1 issue in the mid-terms it seems odd that the Republican States AGs continue to push forward on these ACA suits?

 

(I realize that these suits had been brought in an earlier time when it looked like the ACA was low-hanging fruit.)

 

I guess if you want to completely decimate the Republican Party then, by all means, proceed.

Not really. The republicans have been wanting to kill ACA since the moment it passed. The recent elections mean nothing to them. That is their brand. Of course they're cool with sick and poor people dying of lack of access to health care. It's part of their perverted IDEOLOGY.

[KhunFred]

As the Brits, Canadians, Australians and most of Europe,  laugh their asses off at the stupidity of the United States. I became acquainted with an American doctor who used to work for the NHS. She said that, despite the slanderous accusations of US conservatives, that the program was mostly well run and that its detractors picked out the worst cases they could find to make their case against "socialized medicine". Americans think anything the government is involved in, is somehow a "communist plot".

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

...

If this stands a very significant portion of the people that voted in Individual-1 will be losing their access to healthcare. Either via an ACA exchange policy or expanded Medicare (also a part of the ACA).

...

Correction to above.

Of course I meant expanded Medicaid, not Medicare. Medicare is the elder program not linked to ACA.

https://familiesusa.org/product/50-state-look-medicaid-expansion

[bkkcanuck8]

35 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Also meaning that Americans should hang their heads in shame that universal healthcare wasn't started 40 years ago (comment not meant as a specific criticism of you Jingthing).

 

It works in numerous other countries, sure at first some teething problems but eventually running smoothly and bringing good healthcare with little waiting times to everybody, free or at very low cost. Also meaning we all care for each other. 

 

I wonder if there's another angle on this. The majority of Americans seen to see socialism / socialist policies / part socialist / part capitalist economy etc., as dangerous, even evil.

 

These folks seem to have their heads well buried in the sand of 50 / 100 years ago and still see communism / socialism as reds under the bed ready to steal our children, monitor our every minute with special police, people disappearing to forced labour camps etc etc. Time for these folks to get educated about the world today.    

 

 

The issue is that capitalism vs socialism is rarely an absolute (except in totalitarian regimes).  The western world has varying socialist programs (and there is not a wide variance in the coverage - with the exception of the US and medical coverage - which has always been a patchwork of mishmash).  IMHO the most important social program (supported in part or in whole depending on level - by tax dollars) is Education... since it aims to move Education from what your parents can afford to the foundation of a meritocracy. 

 

How Canada became an education superpower

 

Socialized medicine insurance (doctors are still private) in Canada is often demonized by Americans as a disaster, but for a disaster it is very popular (i.e. 90%+ support/happy with it).

Edited December 15, 2018 by bkkcanuck8