Federal judge in Texas rules Obama health-care law unconstitutional (WP)

[dalton99a]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-judge-in-texas-rules-obama-health-care-law-unconstitutional/2018/12/14/9e8bb5a2-fd63-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html

Federal judge in Texas rules Obama health-care law unconstitutional
By Amy Goldstein
December 14 at 8:21 PM

A federal judge in Texas threw a dagger on Friday into the Affordable Care Act, ruling that the entire health-care law is unconstitutional because of a recent change in federal tax law.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor overturns all of the sprawling law nationwide.

The ruling came on the eve of the deadline for Americans to sign up for coverage in the federal insurance exchange created under the law.

Since the suit was filed in January, many health-law specialists have viewed its logic as weak but nevertheless have regarded the case as the greatest looming legal threat to the 2010 law, which has been a GOP whipping post ever since and assailed repeatedly in the courts.

The Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional in 2012 and 2015, though the first of those opinions struck down the ACA’s provision that was to expand Medicaid nationwide, letting each state choose instead. No matter how O’Connor ruled, legal experts have been forecasting that the Texas case would be appealed and could well place the law again before the high court, giving its conservative newest member, Justice Brett Kavenaugh, a first opportunity to take part.

O’Connor is a conservative judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was appointed by President George W. Bush. O’Connor ruled once before on an issue arising from the ACA, issuing a nationwide injunction two years ago on an Obama administration rule that forbid providers of health care to discriminate based on gender identity.

And in June, the administration took the unusual step of telling the court that it will not defend the ACA against this latest challenge. Typically, the executive branches argues to uphold existing statutes in court cases.

The lawsuit was initiated by Texas’s attorney general Ken Paxton, who describes himself as a tea party conservative, with support from 18 GOP counterparts and a governor. The plaintiffs argue that the entire ACA is invalid. They trace their argument to the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority that the penalty the law created for Americans who do not carry health insurance is constitutional because Congress “does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”

As part of a tax overhaul a year ago, congressional Republicans pushed through a change in which that ACA penalty will be eliminated, starting in January. The lawsuit argues that, with the enforcement of the insurance requirement gone, there is no longer a tax, so the law is not constitutional anymore.

....

[RandySF]

1. "What goes around comes around"

[Volaris]

2. They're gonna fuck around with this until the only tenable response is

'Medicare for All, and your TaxCuts be Damnned'

'Strike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.'...and John Roberts knows it. I look for him to not really want to screw around with this heh.

[RandySF]

4. Actually I was quotung Kavanaugh

He's going to knock it down to get back at Senate Dems.

[Volaris]

14. Na. My guess is Roberts is going to keep him on a very short leash for at least the next 2 years,

And that means he can writing all the dissenting opinions he wants as long he's going to be in the minority.

[LBM20]

9. Explain how Medicare For All will pass a Republican Senate and get signed by Trump.

[Volaris]

13. Oh its not gonna happen within the next 2 years.

But if the ACA becomes so gutted as to be legally useless (or repealed), the outcry is going to be so massive next time, that the only 'fix' will be to do this the only way that hasnt been tried yet.
That's my suspicion, anyway.

[Hortensis]

16. What? You don't get it, Volaris. NO national healthcare system.

That's what packing the courts with far-right extremists is about. NO big government programs because they'll all be declared unconstitutional. This may take down the ACA, all right, but don't assume it could be replaced.

What's at stake is NOT what form of national insurance program (ACA or MfA or ?) we have. If we had a majority in the senate and added the original single payer option we always intended to the ACA in January, it would not save it from these people.

NO universal healthcare. NO national healthcare. That's the goal.

***

And while we're on the subject, they absolutely intend to make ALL big government taxpayer funded programs unconstitutional. Anti-LGBGQ Judge O'Connor, like many who've been placed in our courts, chooses not to believe that the constitution's General Welfare clause was ever meant to lead to big federal programs. Those include Clarence Thomas, Thomas Kavanaugh, and Neal Gorsuch. And which others? The ACA is not being struck down on that basis in this case, but once they know they have a majority they'll go after all the big programs they're limited to gutting funding for and destroying from within right now.

NO Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, CHIPS, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, even mandatory public education and child labor laws. They're ALL based on liberal interpretation of what the general welfare clause means. Think of dominoes tumbling, gaining speed. Think Newt Gingrich recommending poor students be required to scrub school bathrooms in return for lunches. These are some BAD people.

***

And if we don't stop them, it gets a lot worse. They don't believe the constitution contains a "right to privacy" under any provision or interpretation. The "right to be left alone" clause. Right to privacy is what keeps the government from wiretapping us, using the internet for surveillance of each of us, dictating compulsory physical examination by employers or police, how many children people can have or whether they can have children. Abortion, contraception, forced sterilization, right of prisoners to be presented to hospitals for surgery.

Do NOT embrace this action imagining they'll let it work for you. They have no intention of that.

[manor321]

3. This is why it was important to vote for the Democratic candidate in 2016

And why it was important to support the Democratic nominee once the primary finished.

There is a reason Republicans worked so hard to steal the Supreme Court.

An entire generation of liberal laws will be struck down by the courts.

[regnaD kciN]

5. According to The Hill, it's unlikely to last...

The ruling is certain to be appealed, and legal experts in both parties have said they ultimately expect the challenge to the health law will not succeed.

...but, hey, great job reviving the 2016 Democratic civil war one more time!

[manor321]

6. There is no civil war after the primary ends, only people helping Republicans

And this is just the first attack on one liberal law. Others will be coming, including laws we pass in the future.

[elocs]

17. "great job reviving the 2016 Democratic civil war one more time!"

Because if Democrats don't learn from their dumbass mistakes from the past we will end up right back where we were in 2016.
You would have thought that Democrats would have learned from the 2000 race that they need to support and vote for the Democratic candidate in swing states, but then the same thing happens again in 2016.
But given the fickle nature of the Left, I'm not confident that it won't happen again.

[roamer65]

7. Hey northern Medicaid expansion states!

If we secede and join the Canadian confederation we can have universal Medicare. Real Medicare...cradle to grave Medicare.

[LBM20]

10. Is this a joke?

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. And legal weed.

[Takket]

8. the flaw in the logic here....

if i'm understanding this.... is that the Judge is saying "Since SCOTUS declared it is Constitutional for Congress can impose a penalty for not having insurance, which is essentially a tax, then without the tax the law is unconstitutional."

Well....... a tax can be "allowed" by a law but it certainly isn't a requirement.

[Polybius]

12. But the mandate was already repealed

The individual mandate is dead, I don't get it.

[Wrz]

15. If this is upheld it will literally kill me

I have severe Cushing's Disease and must take a $40k a month medication called Korlym to stay alive. If I lose my Medicaid coverage I will be dead within a year.

I am going to do whatever it takes to get on SSI in case the Medicaid expansion is taken away. My life depends on it. As far as I am concerned this judge is trying to take my life.

I have already had three nervous breakdowns from how close the ACA came to being repealed, and now this is all coming to the surface again.

[Just a Weirdo]

19. Relax.

This judgement will never be upheld. Wont even get past appeals.

[allgood33]

18. Can everybody who is bounced off the ACA join insurance in Canada?

Is there a law against it? Would the insurance companies welcome more people seeking coverage? Is there a law against doing this? Could Canada set up a bilateral insurance agreement? If we buy clothes and cars from other countries, couldn't we do the same with health insurance if a portion of the medical profession bought in?