Why Are You Even Here? The Surprising Attitudes of Some Expats in Thailand

[webfact]

U.S. appeals court signals sympathy to bid to strike down Obamacare

By Nate Raymond

 

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

 

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - A federal appeals court panel appeared sympathetic on Tuesday to Republican efforts to overturn Obamacare, expressing scepticism to Democratic calls to overturn the ruling of a Texas judge who found the landmark U.S. healthcare reform law unconstitutional.

 

Two Republican-appointed members of the three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned lawyers for a group of Democratic state attorneys general and the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives defending the Affordable Care Act.

 

Republicans including President Donald Trump have repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to repeal the ACA since it was passed in 2010. The Justice Department would normally defend a federal law, but Trump's administration has declined to do so in a challenge by 18 Republican-led states.

 

The court made no decision on Tuesday. Whichever way it rules, the decision could prompt an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially setting up a major legal battle over healthcare for tens of millions of Americans in the midst of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

 

The judges focused on whether Obamacare lost its legal justification after Trump in 2017 signed a law that eliminated a tax penalty used to enforce the law's mandate that all Americans buy health insurance.

 

 

"If you no longer have the tax, why isn't it unconstitutional?" Judge Jennifer Elrod, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, asked during Tuesday's hearing on a sweltering day in New Orleans.

 

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Trump appointee, asked why if Congress thought the law had so many "excellent ideas" unrelated to its "linchpin" mandate, it would not have taken steps to ensure the rest of the law would not be struck down as well.

 

"There's a political solution here that you, various parties are asking this court to roll up its sleeves and get involved in," Engelhardt said.

 

A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California's Xavier Becerra stepped up to defend the signature achievement of Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. The House of Representatives intervened after Democrats won control in the November midterm elections, during which many focused their campaigns on defending Obamacare.

 

Republican opponents call the law an unwarranted intervention by government in health insurance markets, while supporters say striking it down would threaten the healthcare of 20 million people who have gained insurance since its enactment.

 

In 2012, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of its provisions, including the individual mandate, which requires people to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.

 

The mandate compelled healthy people to buy insurance to offset sicker patients' costs after Obamacare barred insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.

 

The Supreme Court's conservative majority found Congress could not constitutionally order people to buy insurance. But Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal members to hold the mandate was a valid exercise of Congress' tax power.

 

After Trump signed a tax bill passed by a Republican-led Congress that reduced the tax penalty to zero dollars, a coalition of Republican-led states headed by Texas sued, alleging the tax penalty's elimination rendered Obamacare unconstitutional.

 

"IT'S COMPLICATED"

In December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, agreed. O'Connor, who was also nominated by George W. Bush, said that because Obamacare called the mandate "essential," the entire law must be struck down.

 

Kyle Hawkins, Texas' solicitor general, said "essential" language was all the 5th Circuit needed to look at to see the entire law should be struck down. "The best evidence is the text itself," he said.

 

Douglas Letter, the House of Representatives' general counsel, argued that since Congress had not repealed the rest of Obamacare, it never intended to invalidate the entire law.

 

"Courts are required to give a statute a constitutional interpretation if you can and save everything unless Congress prefers no statute," he argued.

 

The Justice Department initially argued the mandate was unconstitutional but most of Obamacare could be severed from it. But it argued on appeal that rest of the law cannot be severed.

 

Pressed by Elrod on the administration's plans if Obamacare is struck down, August Flentje, a Justice Department lawyer, said, “A lot of this stuff would need to get sorted out, and it’s complicated."

 

(Reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Scott Malone, Bill Berkrot, Richard Chang and Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-10

 Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[lannarebirth]

It is unfortunate that the US Constitution doesn't allow for the possibility of a national referendum. If it were within my power I'd craft a referendum that asks the question "Should all US citizens and Permanent Residents receive government funded universal healthcare or should no US citizens and Permanent Residents recieve universal healthcare. This system of providing universal healthcare m/l for free for large blocks of the population, but not for the people that pay for those free riders has got to end.

 

I pay about $22,000/yr for my wife and myself for healthcare insurance, which of course doesn't include the $6,500/yr deductible for each of us, which of course doesn't include co-pays, which of course doesn't include what I'm paying for the 40% of the people who receive their health care for free or nearly so. You are welcome. 

Edited July 10, 2019 by lannarebirth

[mania]

29 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

This system of providing universal healthcare m/l for free for large blocks of the population, but not for the people that pay for those free riders has got to end.

While I appreciate the sentiment is it actually factual?

 

Does those paying for healthcare pay for others health care bills anymore than the Tobacco tax pays for lung cancer patients treatments?

 

Do tax payers pay anything towards anyone's anything? Or is all the US tax collected per year not even enough to pay the interest to the FED Reserve each year?

 

Truthfully I no longer know if any of the old traditional values thinking applies to anything in the USA. The whole system is quite FUBAR for decades now

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, mania said:

While I appreciate the sentiment is it actually factual?

 

Does those paying for healthcare pay for others health care bills anymore than the Tobacco tax pays for lung cancer patients treatments?

 

Do tax payers pay anything towards anyone's anything? Or is all the US tax collected per year not even enough to pay the interest to the FED Reserve each year?

 

Truthfully I no longer know if any of the old traditional values thinking applies to anything in the USA. The whole system is quite FUBAR for decades now

 

Well you can choose which portion of the budget applies to the deficit if you want to but I tend to consider real goods and services received which of course includes health care. I'd like to see everyone receive federally funded healthcare, but if no one receives it I could live with that too. I don't like this middle ground though, where the only people who receive it pay virtually nothing for it and don't give afuck if the people that provide that for them have it themselves.

[mania]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 I'd like to see everyone receive federally funded healthcare

I always said I don't take anything from the govt & would appreciate if they didn't take anything from me either ????

 

But yes as I got older I also would like to see everyone at least have federally funded healthcare...why not? IF this country can spend 700+ billion a year on

the Military Industrial complex we sure can afford healthcare for all.

 

Besides the govt has no "real" money except that which we gave them

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by mania

[Tug]

Suer would be nice to get something for my taxes 

[lannarebirth]

Just now, mania said:

I always said I don't take anything from the govt & would appreciate if they didn't take anything from me either ????

 

But yes as I got older I also would like to see everyone at least have federally funded healthcare...why not? IF this country can spend 700+ billion a year on

the Military Industrial complex we surly can afford healthcare for all.

 

Besides the govt has no "real" money except that which we gave them

 

Not to mention that it will save money.

Insurers are going to spend billions this election cycle trying to convince people it is a boondoggle. And probably if I were in their position having made 1000% profits these past 10 years I'd spend a bit of thatto see that it continues. Fact is, they are parasites and they have contributed greatly to the diminishment of the middle class in America.

[JCauto]

This is great! I hope that the Supreme Court finally follows their true conscience and Roberts' votes his actual beliefs rather than trying to save himself and the Conservative Majority Court from the perception (correct) that they're political and not impartial judges as per the Constitution.

Nothing would facilitate the downfall of the Right better and faster than the repeal of Obamacare and the inevitable replacement with NOTHING. And nothing would be better for the Left than the repeal of Obamacare and the inevitable demand for Universal Health Care as a replacement. Let this become the primary issue for the 2020 elections! C'mon Repubs, hit the gas and run on your "great" Obamacare replacement that you'll have to put in place in a desperate hurry without control of the House. Oh, and without having come up with ANYTHING resembling a plan despite trying to kill Obamacare for the last several years.

 

Remember that old adage, "be careful what you ask for...". Nothing will motivate a massive turnout of young voters than the repeal of Obamacare, and that's the death knell for the Right.

[Srikcir]

Losing the ACA mandate requiring purchase causes the program to become underfunded.

Not the first such instance with a government program and surely will not be the last to become underfunded. The operation of the U.S. Postal Service is an example of consistently requiring frequent  supplement federal funding as it cannot operate as a stand-alone enterprise as originally intended. 

• A federal program becoming underfunded doesn't mean the program is unconstitutional. Especially a program created by an Act of Congress.

It is otherwise the authority and duty of the Congress and not the Judiciary to assure adequate program funding sources for ACA or replace it with another program. In that aspect only Congress can repeal ACA.

[Mac98]

Any healthy person voting against universal healthcare or coverage for pre-existing conditions should have to sign a waiver for any such coverage for themselves in the future.

[bristolboy]

On 7/10/2019 at 9:28 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

Well you can choose which portion of the budget applies to the deficit if you want to but I tend to consider real goods and services received which of course includes health care. I'd like to see everyone receive federally funded healthcare, but if no one receives it I could live with that too. I don't like this middle ground though, where the only people who receive it pay virtually nothing for it and don't give afuck if the people that provide that for them have it themselves.

The only people who pay virtually nothing for it are Medicaid recipients and that expense is funded by a tax on the wealthy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/26/trumpcare-health-tax-cut-1-percent

 

And your feeling are hurt because they don't give a <deleted>? Those damned ungrateful greedy poor! Would a Hallmark card make you feel better? Right wing claptrap.

[bristolboy]

On 7/10/2019 at 9:59 AM, lannarebirth said:

Not to mention that it will save money.

Insurers are going to spend billions this election cycle trying to convince people it is a boondoggle. And probably if I were in their position having made 1000% profits these past 10 years I'd spend a bit of thatto see that it continues. Fact is, they are parasites and they have contributed greatly to the diminishment of the middle class in America.

1000% profits? More drivel. Is that why so many insurance companies quit the ACA? Because they were making 1000% profits and didn't know what to do with all that cash?

Edited July 12, 2019 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

I suspect that the Supreme Court will uphold the ACA by a 5 to 4 vote. Roberts is too politically astute to give the Democrats an issue. But if that happens, it's still a great issue for the Democrats. Namely the the ACA is just one sitting Supreme Court judge away from being reversed. Would anyone doubt that Trump would make his or her oppostion to it a litmus test for appointment?