Texas District Court Strikes Down the Entire Affordable Care Act

[Keef 757]

Yeehaw!  

Rationale being that once the individual tax was repealed, there was no longer a constitutional basis for the Act.  I'm not smart enough to figure out how to do this, but we have a major problem in our country of super partisan district courts being able to completely subvert the federal government.  For example, both Trump and Obama have had major legislative action blocked by relatively low level courts.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Keef

[Whitman 694]

One would think that maybe this will be the impetus to shit or get off the pot and we can decide whether or not to have Universal Single Payer health coverage and just pay for it thru taxation.

[Texas Jeff 1932]

I think there is still a requirement to have coverage, but the penalty for not having coverage is $0.

Technically the tax is still there -- it was not repealed, it's just set to zero right now.  It could be set to something other than zero by a future Congress.

[Kyle 207]

99% of this board just changed its position on “activist judges.” Now they’re racist nazis.

[Keef 757]

Gotta think this is the conservatives throwing up the bat single to Kavanaugh. This random whack job in Fort Worth just threw the entire insurance market into utter confusion right before the new plan year. 

[David Dennison 18603]

13 minutes ago, Keef said:

Gotta think this is the conservatives throwing up the bat single to Kavanaugh. This random whack job in Fort Worth just threw the entire insurance market into utter confusion right before the new plan year. 

The stay will take care of that. The ACA is still the law of the land. 

EDIT: He didn't even issue an injunction. No need for a stay. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by David Dennison

[Fozzz 152]

44 minutes ago, Whitman said:

One would think that maybe this will be the impetus to shit or get off the pot and we can decide whether or not to have Universal Single Payer health coverage and just pay for it thru taxation.

Lol they’ll say that shit is unconstitutional too. If you can’t win at the ballot box then win at the bench. 

[David Dennison 18603]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Lol they’ll say that shit is unconstitutional too. If you can’t win at the ballot box then win at the bench. 

That means Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.

Good luck with that, nut jobs.

[bolverk 29359]

25 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

I think there is still a requirement to have coverage, but the penalty for not having coverage is $0.

Technically the tax is still there -- it was not repealed, it's just set to zero right now.  It could be set to something other than zero by a future Congress.

This is the correct take. That said, I'd much prefer eliminating the middleman and just having a Medicare for all plan. Maybe phase it in with universal coverage first for minors, then the below 26 college crowd and part-timers first starting their careers, and finally the rest of us working schmucks.

[Post Oak 20182]

37 minutes ago, Kyle said:

99% of this board just changed its position on “activist judges.” Now they’re racist nazis.

 

[David Dennison 18603]

41 minutes ago, Kyle said:

99% of this board just changed its position on “activist judges.” Now they’re racist nazis.

Does this include you? Or do you favor legislating from the bench now?

[RPM 26185]

Health insurance premiums will drop like a rock and coverage will skyrocket!

[TwiceHorn 31184]

2 hours ago, Keef said:

we have a major problem in our country of super partisan district courts being able to completely subvert the federal government. 

No we don't. 

[Cajun 11675]

Such a piece of shit act.

Buh bye!

[DixonHur 11074]

If only I'd shorted some health insurance stocks today.

[David Dennison 18603]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

Such a piece of shit act.

Buh bye!

Um, it's not going anywhere.

You understand that, right?

[Ted Lange 15991]

Narrator. He doesn’t 

[Cajun 11675]

Oh, it is, just a slow, elongated death rattle.

[Satchel 6908]

Do the people who keep gnawing at this law like a teething puppy really think they'll like what replaces it any better?

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Cajun said:

Oh, it is, just a slow, elongated death rattle.

Just like Social Security and Medicare.

Derp.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

So the POTUS didn't change the law, he just set the tax at 0?

[Keef 757]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No we don't. 

Did you hate it when the district court in Hawaii issued a nation wide injunction on Trump’s travel ban?

[Yuk 1505]

So the POTUS didn't change the law, he just set the tax at 0?

Yes and without the penalty it’s just a requirement to buy health insurance. It was done intentionally to undermine Roberts argument for allowing mandate.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Whitman said:

One would think that maybe this will be the impetus to shit or get off the pot and we can decide whether or not to have Universal Single Payer health coverage and just pay for it thru taxation.

Hell, I agree, but I know your posting history, so I will put it differently.

How bout you worry about getting your shithole state off my state's tit first, chief?

I say we cut ties so that the NE and West Coast can join the rest of the free world in providing healthcare for its citizens and West Virginia can join Somalia because that is where West Virginia really wants to be. 

[David Dennison 18603]

2 minutes ago, Keef said:

Did you hate it when the district court in Hawaii issued a nation wide injunction on Trump’s travel ban?

There's one tiny difference between that case and this one.

Let's see if you can figure out what it is.

[wildcat09 29187]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

That means Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.

Good luck with that, nut jobs.

Plenty of Republicans will be arguing that within the next few years.

[Yuk 1505]

Pretty decent thread with analysis on the court's ruling.

 

[Keef 757]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There's one tiny difference between that case and this one.

Let's see if you can figure out what it is.

You agree with one policy but not the other? The judiciary is being increasingly politicized and there are lots of federal judges. If you’re a republican and you don’t agree with a national policy, you bring the case in the Texas. California if you’re a democrat. Get a favorable judge, and boom, nationwide injunction. It’s bad for the country. 

[David Dennison 18603]

1 minute ago, Keef said:

You agree with one policy but not the other? The judiciary is being increasingly politicized and there are lots of federal judges. If you’re a republican and you don’t agree with a national policy, you bring the case in the Texas. California if you’re a democrat. Get a favorable judge, and boom, nationwide injunction. It’s bad for the country. 

That's not what's different.

[Keef 757]

That one is still probably a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause?  Enlighten me.

[Cajun 11675]

36 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Just like Social Security and Medicare.

Derp.

I'll be pulling for you during the Supreme Court decision.

derp

[David Dennison 18603]

16 minutes ago, Cajun said:

I'll be pulling for you during the Supreme Court decision.

derp

It's never going to get to the Supreme Court.

[David Dennison 18603]

28 minutes ago, Keef said:

That one is still probably a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause?  Enlighten me.

No. That's not it.

Legally, they are similar, but politically, they are very different. One is very easy to overturn (the travel ban, based on an executive order). The other is very difficult to overturn (the ACA, actual legislation). 

This decision doesn't do anything substantive. There is no injunction and it's going to be overturned anyway.

[HenryJames 65868]

 

[RPM 26185]

This is going to be appealed, right? How is requiring basic health coverage different from requiring basic auto coverage? They have a huge, throbbing, hardon for that. Financial responsibility and all.

[Goredho 17301]

Given this will just be overturned, its an interesting positioning of this act within the news cycle.  I wonder if the evoked angst over the threat to the ACA is going to divert attention from something else, something more important and substantive?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Does this include you? Or do you favor legislating from the bench now?

You're pissed I'm sure. I'm also sure every time the 9th circuit over turns anything you have to change your shorts (with glee I might add).

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

8 hours ago, Cajun said:

Such a piece of shit act.

Buh bye!

Despite Dems soliciting and incorporating 161 GOP amendments into the ACA (only to hear Pubs lie through their faces about it being railroaded through) in a futile effort to secure a single GOP vote, despite the Public Option being removed by the champions of competition, despite the final version more closely resembling Romneycare/1993 Republican counterproposal to the Clinton Universal Healthcare Initiative than anything the Dems had previously proposed, despite the courts ruling states could opt out of Medicare expansion, despite Pubs intentionally roiling the markets with uncertainty beating the repeal wardrums, despite a Republican Congress being found in violation of the law by defunding risk corridors designed to foster competition, and despite Pubs effectively cancelling what was originally their own fucking idea, the individual mandate, the ACA STILL

 

AMAZINGLY

 

ALMOST MIRACULOUSLY

 

- insured millions of more Americans than previosly covered

- slowed the rate of healthcare cost growth (even more so in states that expanded Medicare)

-slashed medical bankruptcies in goddamn half

 

By almost any meaningful metric that measures the common good, the ACA, despite its flaws and Republican sabotage, still improved a shitty situation.

[scottsins 1953]

No. That's not it.
Legally, they are similar, but politically, they are very different. One is very easy to overturn (the travel ban, based on an executive order). The other is very difficult to overturn (the ACA, actual legislation). 
This decision doesn't do anything substantive. There is no injunction and it's going to be overturned anyway.

The difference that you note as being “political” is actually extremely significant LEGALLY as it relates to the standard of review and deference.

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You're pissed I'm sure. I'm also sure every time the 9th circuit over turns anything you have to change your shorts (with glee I might add).

I am fine with this decision. I was fine with the others. Judicial review is extremely important and I am glad we have it. I am also glad that the judge recognized that an injunction was unnecessary and premature prior to appellate review. 

This particular decision will almost certainly be overturned as its reasoning could invalidate tons of major legislation over the last hundred years.

[Dahobbs 17420]

25 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

The difference that you note as being “political” is actually extremely significant LEGALLY as it relates to the standard of review and deference.

 

Indeed. 

[David Dennison 18603]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You're pissed I'm sure. I'm also sure every time the 9th circuit over turns anything you have to change your shorts (with glee I might add).

Why would I be pissed? If for some reason this is upheld it only hastens the inevitability of expanding Medicare. Healthcare is a losing issue for Republicans.  

The ACA is extremely flawed, but because it is law, millions of Americans now view healthcare as a right. The ACA provides a legislative and cultural foundation for the single payer system that will eventually take its place.

[Keef 757]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

This is going to be appealed, right? How is requiring basic health coverage different from requiring basic auto coverage? They have a huge, throbbing, hardon for that. Financial responsibility and all.

Simplifying things, Congress has broad authority to make laws under what is called the commerce clause of the Constitution, which allows it to regulate interstate commerce.

Courts have interpreted this power quite broadly (most federal laws are derived from the exercise of the commerce clause), but the arguement against it being valid under the commerce clause is that the ACA regulated economic inactivity - failure to buy insurance - rather than commerce itself. This is a big hot button issue for conservatives as it is a states rights thing.

Roberts ducked this question entirely by finding it was valid as a tax. He did not address the commerce clause issue, which was intentional. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Keef

[Smax 3799]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

This is going to be appealed, right? How is requiring basic health coverage different from requiring basic auto coverage? They have a huge, throbbing, hardon for that. Financial responsibility and all.

 

only car owners are required to have car insurance, so you can "opt out"

[Dahobbs 17420]

5 minutes ago, Keef said:

Simplifying things, Congress has broad authority to make laws under what is called the commerce clause of the Constitution, which allows it to regulate interstate commerce.

Courts have interpreted this power quite broadly (most federal laws are derived from the exercise of the commerce clause), but the arguement against it being valid under the commerce clause is that the ACA regulated economic inactivity rather than commerce itself. This is a big hot button issue for conservatives as it is a states rights thing.

Roberts ducked this question entirely by finding it was valid as a tax. He did not address the commerce clause issue, which was intentional. 

The Supreme Court isn't going to let one Congress invalidate a constitutional piece of legislation from a previous Congress by playing coy with the level of a tax. Repeal will require proper congressional action. 

[David Dennison 18603]

2 minutes ago, Smax said:

only car owners are required to have car insurance, so you can "opt out"

You want to start paying for "uninsured patients" as part of your health insurance premium?

You already pay for the uninsured on the back end when they can't pay their bills.

One of these days you are going to realize that making sure everyone has health insurance actually saves you money.

[Keef 757]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The Supreme Court isn't going to let one Congress invalidate a constitutional piece of legislation from a previous Congress by playing coy with the level of a tax. Repeal will require proper congressional action. 

I hope you’re right, but I don’t think that’s a given. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

36 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I am fine with this decision. I was fine with the others. Judicial review is extremely important and I am glad we have it. I am also glad that the judge recognized that an injunction was unnecessary and premature prior to appellate review. 

This particular decision will almost certainly be overturned as its reasoning could invalidate tons of major legislation over the last hundred years.

I'm fine with judicial review as well. It's a cornerstone issue of the separation of powers.  What bothers me are judges, who at least on the surface, seem to ignore written law and impose their interpretation of law.  

My post was just a sarcastic jab (@ Dennison) about peoples impressions of judicial activism when it goes for or against their wishes, and what seems to be a pattern with the 9th circuit court at least.  I find it hard to believe they have a corner on what is and what isn't constitutional with such regularity.

The ACA is rife with contradictions, and flaws in my opinion.  It was poorly written, and never properly vetted because they knew they had a small window to get it passed.

[Dahobbs 17420]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm fine with judicial review as well. It's a cornerstone issue of the separation of powers.  What bothers me are judges, who at least on the surface, seem to ignore written law and impose their interpretation of law.  

My post was just a sarcastic jab (@ Dennison) about peoples impressions of judicial activism when it goes for or against their wishes, and what seems to be a pattern with the 9th circuit court at least.  I find it hard to believe they have a corner on what is and what isn't constitutional with such regularity.

The ACA is rife with contradictions, and flaws in my opinion.  It was poorly written, and never properly vetted because they knew they had a small window to get it passed.

Maybe, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional or unique as far as our laws go. 

[David Dennison 18603]

18 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm fine with judicial review as well. It's a cornerstone issue of the separation of powers.  What bothers me are judges, who at least on the surface, seem to ignore written law and impose their interpretation of law.  

My post was just a sarcastic jab (@ Dennison) about peoples impressions of judicial activism when it goes for or against their wishes, and what seems to be a pattern with the 9th circuit court at least.  I find it hard to believe they have a corner on what is and what isn't constitutional with such regularity.

The ACA is rife with contradictions, and flaws in my opinion.  It was poorly written, and never properly vetted because they knew they had a small window to get it passed.

The ACA was debated for over a year. It was properly vetted.