Federal judge in Texas strikes down ObamaCare

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

A federal judge in Texas on Friday struck down the Affordable Care Act, throwing a new round of uncertainty into the fate of the law just one day before the deadline to sign up for coverage for next year.

The judge ruled that the law's individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that because the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, the rest of the law is also invalid.

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.

Judge Reed O'Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, acknowledged that health care is a "politically charged affair—inflaming emotions and testing civility."

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/421511-federal-judge-in-texas-strikes-down-obamacare

---

So basically it's all kabuki theater

[regnaD kciN]

1. It depends how the kabukis on SCOTUS vote...

...and that group has gained Gorsuch and Kavanaugh since the last time they ruled on the ACA.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. meh nothing changes. Kennedy and Scalia were against the ACA.

[Polybius]

45. They didn't gain Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

They traded Scalia for him and Kennedy for them, and both voted to end the ACA, so that's not a loss on votes. Roberts voted with the liberals, so it'll be another 5-4 loss for them, or 6-3 depending on how Kav votes. No hope for Gorsuch.

[Scruffy1]

4. It doesn't work that way.

By law hospitals and emergency people who work for hospitals can't turn anyone away if they take federal funding. What really sucks is not having everyone in the pool. As it is now, those of us who have insurance have to pay for those that don't.

[PeeJ52]

8. Yeah...

Just like union membership... Let's all just quit paying

[PaulX2]

11. They Want To Gamble And When They Lose We Pay

Sound fair?

[PSPS]

5. Yeah! Well, at least until it's you!

[Lochloosa]

7. The ACA is not about falling down. It's about health CARE.

Like high blood pressure, sleep apnea. Stuff I have.

[BigmanPigman]

13. You really need to educate yourself on this issue.

You do not understand the ACA at all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. That's not true. If the ambulance comes you have to pay for it.

Emergency medical treatment is not free. You will be billed. If you still can't pay after it goes to collection and you are dunned for payment for months, the cost will be absorbed by the hospital, and everyone else has to pay more. It is a common right wing canard that ER treatment is free. It is not.

[progree]

21. And emergency room care is not full healthcare - they stabilize the person and then kick him/her out

with referrals to doctors and/or specialists that one can't afford to see, and a fistful of prescriptions that one can't afford to fill (where "one" is a typical uninsured patient).

I couldn't reply to "Post removed" (and hopefully in due course to "Name Removed ... Message Auto Removed" ), so I picked this spot for my rant. I get so sick and I get so tired of hearing the canard that the poor and uninsured get full and free healthcare from an emergency room.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Exactly. They save your life and patch you up to the point where you won't

drop over dead immediately, but you don't get meds or long-term care or treatment for a chronic condition. And even so, you'll get a bill. A very large one.

[Aristus]

60. The post was removed, but I'm guessing it said something like GWB's idiotic:

"You kin jes' go to th'Mergency Room!"



Hospital emergency departments are not set up to provide primary care. (I hope the loser who posted the now-removed reply is reading this; or you know, having someone read it to him...) They're also not trained to offer appropriate follow-up for primary care cases. That's what primary care providers like me are for. The ACA gave patients the opportunity to access quality primary care, instead of going to the emergency room. This saves the tax payers billions in otherwise uncompensated care provided at emergency rooms.

The ACA saved taxpayers money. That's why the repukes hate it so much; it does what it's supposed to do. It works when they said it wouldn't.

[keithbvadu2]

9. Do NOT call it Obamacare! It is ACA... Use that term.

Do NOT call it Obamacare! It is ACA... Use that term.

Republicans want to take away your ACA.

Don't be shy about showing that they want to take it away.

[keithbvadu2]

10. Trump: There is no such thing as ObamaCare anymore (June 2017)

Trump: There is no such thing as ObamaCare anymore (June 2017)

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/355658-trump-there-is-no-such-thing-as-obamacare-anymore

[trixie2]

29. Exactly!

I can't convince my doctor that the rules have changed. He has a list of preventative tests he wants done but I have to pay 100% until I reach 10 grand. That is not healthcare.

[harun]

57. Agree, don't let the deplorables set the narrative.

[BigmanPigman]

12. FUCK that judge!

How the Hell can this be allowed to happen when the majority of Americans want affordable health care (the midterms were won on this issue!)?!?!?

I hate the GOP who wants to bankrupt and kill Americans, in that order.

[still_one]

26. The SC already ruled the ACA Constitutional, including the mandate. This has no standing, and I

doubt it will even get to the SC before it is overruled by an appellate court

[BigmanPigman]

31. Oh, I hope you are right.

I have been on the verge of tears for two hours. I can't take it anymore...I am too depressed to even eat dinner now. Tomorrow is the day my little dog died and this does NOT help my mood. I just renewed my ACA yesterday...what timing!

[Just a Weirdo]

32. Well, time to impeach that idiotic judge

I guess he's not quite caught up to the 20th, or even the 21st century...

[former9thward]

37. The SC decision was based on the tax code at the time.

Since then it has changed. So this new challenge.

[still_one]

50. I think it will still be upheld by an appeals court or the SC. Regardless, the midterms made it

very clear that healthcare was a top priority, and the republican "CULT", has written their epitaph on the back of trump

[toddwv]

43. And if the Trump DOJ refuses to repeal the decision?

NVM... one of the Defendants is California.

[still_one]

51. We will see what the appeals or SC say, but California already has legislation ready to come

off the self for Universal Healthcare, though it was put on hold because how it would be funded wasn't indicated, but with Democrats completely controlling the legislature and governor's office, and if the ACA is overturned by the SC, this will happen much quicker in California

[Igel]

59. Things change.

The tax law effectively repealed the mandate--at least that's the claim.

Of course, the mandate was just a tax increase by the wrong name, according to SCOTUS. But that means it was just a tax.

If there's no "mandate" then there's the question as to whether the rest of the legal edifice still stands. For that, I have no idea.

But the legal structure that was pronounced constitutional--against the limited claims that the SCOTUS considered--isn't still around. Moreover, SCOTUS didn't examine the entirety of the law and every possible argument against it, so the pronouncement of constitutionality was really limited in scope.

[turbinetree]

30. He is a Federalist Society member and was nominated by a republican

I firmly believe that this will make the party of the progressives begin expanding Medicare for all..............we will win this fight.................we have no other alternatives..................


https://fedsoc.org/contributors/reed-o-connor


November 3, 2020 cannot get here fast enough.....................

[rdking647]

14. its time for the people to rise up

[safeinOhio]

15. and demand single payer

[Danmel]

16. It just never ends

I'm really becoming despondent.

[Equinox Moon]

18. Time for Universal Health Care for ALL.

[Texin]

19. Roberts at SCOTUS pretty much struck that down three years+ ago down.

And Reed O'Connor just put more "politically charged affair - inflaming emotions" shit out there. This is the ultimate test for the ACA. They want this to go to the SCOTUS for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to shit on it. And they probably will. They probably will.

[still_one]

27. I doubt it will get to the SC which already ruled it Constitutional. This judges ruling will be

over turned by an appellate court, and even as you suggest it got to the SC, Roberts' is not going to change his ruling, so it will still stand at 5-4

[Canoe52]

20. Haha haha, stupid judge, he just pissed off 70% of America.

[24601]

56. I doubt that a judge appointed for life cares all that much about pissing people off. It's not like

so many state judges or justices who must face the voters to remain in office.

[Canoe52]

61. He's trying to eliminate Obamacare, the last time repugs did that we won 40 seats in the house

because they pissed off the American people. This judge’s actions hopefully will just piss off more people and help us to get closer to Medicare for all, the total opposite of what this judge is trying to impose. I don’t care weither the judge cares or not, but I’d love to see his face when his actions ultimately helps bring about the opposite of what he’s trying to do with his ruling.
Capeesh?

[24601]

85. Of course I understand. But anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time studying this

understands also that voters haven't held elected branches accountable for judicial decisions, even when they contravene CW. Racists don't curse Eisenhower for Brown v. Board Education. Conservatives don't blame Bush (43) for Roberts' ACA decision. This is going back to the USSC by one appeal route or the other. When USSC decides, it will be on the court whether a tax of zero means Congress withdrew it's Article I Taxing power from the authorizing act, or merely reduced it. On the ACA decision, Justice Roberts put a lot of stock on Congress' intent. How do you think he judges their intent the legislation reducing the penalty tax to zero? Predicting USSC decisions usually isn't a great career. The vast majority thought that the despositive issue would be the Commerce Clause, not Congress' Taxing Power.

[kimbutgar]

22. I bet he's a good old christofascist who goes to his baptist church every Sunday

Forgetting Jesus said “heal the sick and help the poor”. If there is a god I hope he gets stuck down in the lords vengeance.

[Just a Weirdo]

33. Reed is already scheduled to spend eternal time in the 4th circle of Hell.

He will not like it there.

[xor]

40. I went on twitter to read what was being said about this

It's amazing how cold hearted and sick people who have "Good Christian", "Jesus Loving", "Love God/Jesus/Trump" profile texts can be. I'm not talking about people who simply disagree with the methods of the ACA or who think there are "better ways" with so-called free market solutions, but rather people who simply don't care about their fellow humans.

I can debate/discuss the mechanics on how to best ensure those unable to afford care can get care. Even if they are conservative or libertarian, if they have that as a goal then there is at least somewhere to go. But with these people, they simply don't care and they would be more than happy to see people die on the streets. I understand how someone can claim to be "of god" or whatever, but also be so cruel and cold.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

23. Not seeing why the mandate is unconstitutional

The government can make us pay taxes. What is the difference? Seems like unconstitutional word is thrown around whenever someone doesn't like something.

[ET Awful]

25. Didn't the Supreme Court already say it WAS Constitutional?

/nt

[still_one]

28. Yes they did. An appellate court will overturn this judges ruling. It won't even get to the SC

[Just a Weirdo]

34. Indeed. This judge needs to be sanctioned and impeached/removed from service.

This cannot stand.

[still_one]

36. I agree, but doubt it will happen

[former9thward]

38. The SC ruling was based on the tax code at the time.

Since then it has changed and eliminated the mandate. This is the basis of the new challenge.

[ET Awful]

42. Did it eliminate the mandate or did it eliminate the penalty?

Could make big difference in interpretation.

[stopbush]

48. It set the penalty to $0 from the previous $690.

So neither was eliminated.

[ET Awful]

62. Based on that, the Judge's argument fails since

technically no part of the law was removed, it was just a change in penalty.

This is similar to say - places where marijuana is "illegal" but has been decriminalized to where they won't fine you for posession of a small amount. The law itself hasn't changed, the penalty for not complying has. This doesn't amount to a cancellation of part of the law, merely an adjustment to the penalty.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I was a paralegal for a few years in the 90's, but that's just enough knowledge to get me in trouble

[harun]

58. My thought as well. Not that the Corporate Media will bring that up.

[angrychair]

35. Fuck it, burn it all down

Right?

I mean millions of people without healthcare...

Economy collapsing in on itself from trade wars and low pay....

Faith in govt at an all time low as the current president acts and speaks with impunity as if he were the god-king of his own planet....

Racism, bigotry and misogyny are everywhere....


What could possibly go wrong when dumping the last few things from Pandora’s box...

[trev]

66. I see your point.

But I think, as long as we are alive, that we should do whatever we can to stand against the loss of our ideals. Isn't that what human life is all about? I mean, if all is lost, why don't we just kill ourselves?

The world is worth our effort.

[angrychair]

69. I don't disagree

The rant was part frustration and part sarcasm.

Gallows humor is sort of my thing.

You know...angry and all

[xor]

39. Had a discussion with a republican trumpette earlier about this

Last edited Sat Dec 15, 2018, 02:00 AM - Edit history (1)

They mentioned it before I had a chance to hear about it. Basically said "A Texas judge just destroyed Obamacare. It doesn't exist anymore." I asked him to explain what exactly that means and what happened, but he just kept saying "obamacare is dead. A texas judge said it's unconstitutional." Literally not details on any of the specifics. At this point I'm more annoyed with the shallowness of people's understanding and zero desire on their part to learn the details about the stuff they try to talk about.

Anyway, I don't see why they are all celebrating. The republicans know that completely killing this would be suicide for themselves (and homicide for some folks who will lose their healthcare) Isn't that why they couldn't get rid of it in their last attempt to kill it?

[JohnZSmith]

44. -

There should be mass riots over this corrupt toxic BS.

[Polybius]

46. Wasn't the mandate already repealed earlier in the year?

If yes, why rule on it? The mandate is gone.

[progree]

47. I recall reading that the mandate is still there, but the tax law changed the penalty to $0

So its a mandate in name only.

[stopbush]

49. But as the mandate still exists, the new Congress could asssign a penalty above $0.

[FBaggins]

71. Not by themselves

The senate and president would have to go along.

[stopbush]

73. That goes without saying.

[Doodley]

52. White privilege strikes again.

[Kablooie]

53. Therefore it needs to be replaced with single payer for everyone.

[Snellius]

54. We can thank the Republican judge for sentencing Republicans to the chair.

ACA, as they found in the last election, like abortion rights, may play well with their base but is an irrevocable given for everyone else. That's why they didn't repeal it when they had a chance. Even Justice Roberts realized ruling against it would only punish themselves.

[Buckeyeblue]

55. Seems like this is an is/was argument

Which should hardly be the basis to overturn the entire law. The SC said the mandate fine was a tax, therefore, it is constitutional because the government has the authority to tax.

What the appeals court is saying is that because the fine for violating the mandate has been reduced to $0, it is no longer a tax. If it is no longer a tax, the mandate becomes unconstitutional. I haven't read the ruling (and I'm not a lawyer), so I don't know what right the individual mandate with a $0 fine violates.

Wouldn't the argument be that the individual mandate still exists and is still a tax. At this point, the tax is $0. But all taxes fluctuate. And because the individual mandate is still there, at any point the tax for that mandate could increase (and would be filibuster proof).

Hell, maybe the house reintroduce the individual mandate and tie it in to the government funding bill. They could increase the individual mandate to $1 and apparently satisfy this rulings requirement.

[onetexan]

63. timing of this ploy is suspect

i think it's another attempt to knock trump's problems off the headlines.

[heckles65]

64. "healthcare is a politically charged affair--inflaming emotions and testing civility."

Gotta love O'Connor's Susan Collins-eque "oh pity me" line.

[Polybius]

65. The mandate appears to have been a mistake

Had it not been included, there would never be a basis for striking it down.

[trev]

67. I have to admit

… that I was against the ACA from the beginning. I felt it would too strongly affect the health care insurance that was already in existence. IOWs, I thought it would destroy my employer-provided insurance. And I was right.

My current ACA insurance sucks hugely. I pay too much for it, and it doesn't cover enough. I realize there is a compromise in regards to those who otherwise could not get insurance. For example, I like the removal of the pre-existing conditions. But it affected me negatively.

I am willing to pay this price. But we need something better than what Obama came up with.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

68. Without the mandate it doesn't work

How do you pay for it?

Furthermore how is it any different than the requirement to have auto insurance?

[FBaggins]

72. The difference is that there is no mandate to have auto insurance

You only have to buy it if you want to drive a car.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

79. Owning a car is not an option but a necessity for most people

Maybe if you live in a place like New York City which has a decent transit system you can avoid such.

[Polybius]

75. The mandate was awful for me a couple of years ago

Back then, I made around $29,000 a year. I did all that I could, but the best price I got was $320 a month, for the cheapest package that covers next to nothing. That is completely unacceptable, so I took the fine and didn't get health insurance.

Anyone making under $50,000 a year should pay nothing for health insurance. As for auto insurance, no one is forced to buy a car.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

80. See my response above

[Polybius]

82. I did, and I live in NYC

Also, you didn't comment on the rest of what I said:

Back then, I made around $29,000 a year. I did all that I could, but the best price I got was $320 a month, for the cheapest package that covers next to nothing. That is completely unacceptable, so I took the fine and didn't get health insurance.

[MichMan]

76. If there is no mandate than pre existing conditions doesn't work

You can't create a viable system where people can wait to buy insurance until they are sick

[Polybius]

77. Forcing people to pay $320 a month for basic insurance while making $29k a year is unacceptable

I paid the fine instead.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

81. I believe financial aid is available for those people.

[MichMan]

83. Sounds like you think the ACA was a terrible idea?

$320 per month is about $10 per day

In 2009 I was unemployed and paid more than that for COBRA using my unemployment checks

What would you have done if you needed hospitalization for an illness or injury?

People deciding they would rather pay the fine than buy the insurance is exactly why the ACA premiums kept going up for everyone else.

[Polybius]

86. I was all for it when it passed

I remember being so happy, I couldn't wait to sign up. I thought that with my pathetic income, it would have been either free or maybe like $20 a month. I was in stunned disbelief when I found out that it would cost more than a brand new car payment, which I also can't afford.

Not sure what I would have done, but in the mid 2000's I had to go the the ER for a bug but that got deeply infected. I think it cost like $1,000. The medicine cost like $40.

[Demsrule86]

84. Really and if you get sick? My daughter made about that and paid less did you check out all the

options...as for paying the fine. Now you won't get treatment without insurance... and the lawsuit will affect workplace insurance too...and young folks on their parents plan lose it also.

[Polybius]

87. I think you meant to write "If you GOT sick" rather than "GET sick"

I'm on free insurance now, I was talking about when I made $29k or so in another job that offered no coverage. I'm in UPS now. I make about double that now and it's free, go figure. There was no way I was gonna pay $320 a month on that salary. I wouldn't even want to pay it now.

Maybe cost depends on area? How much did your daughter pay?

[Demsrule86]

88. I am glad to hear that. We paid alot for a policy with an 8000 deductible...now we have better

insurance.

[ROB-ROX]

70. CALIFORNIA VERSUS TEXAS

Texas is a backward knuckle dragging state. California has high wages and a budget which has so far saved $15 billion for a rainy day. Some people are pushing California to bite the bullet (spend surplus) and give everyone health insurance. I see the health insurance issue like the current "pot" laws. More states are doing the right thing and making pot legal. The "R" are evil people and supporting canceling peoples health insurance will wake up the GOP drones. I always wonder why the middle of the country is RED and the coastal areas are BLUE.....In breeding may cause RED states......

[FBaggins]

74. Unfortunately... that's not close to true

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2018, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

It is for things like social policy, but Texas is way ahead of California economically. $15 Billion in a rainy day fund is not only ridiculously insufficient to “give everyone health insurance” - it pales in comparison to the state’s debt (four times that of Texas even before taking their horribly underfunded state pension system into account).

On edit - and the rainy day fund for TX hit 12.5 Billion this year.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Hows this even possible?! There should be 1,000 protests a day around the country til its overruled.