News Federal judge rules Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional

[UNCjigga]

Welp, idiot Republicans got this ball rolling with no regard for the consequences, and now they have no power to steer it as it barrels towards 17 million people. Let's see what happens...

Texas Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Affordable Care Act as Unconstitutional

https://nyti.ms/2A2iHfc?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good, this is what Americans want, it's what 62 million voted for.

 

[ivwshane]

This seems like a really stupid ruling because it says that Congress can't amend laws but instead they have to repeal them entirely in order to fix them.

 

[whm1974]

Good, this is what Americans want, it's what 62 million voted for.

And how many American didn't vote for it? I personally make sure that I voted, even when I sick at the time to keep shit like this from happening.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was a set up by the GOP when they did away with fines for non compliance with the individual mandate.

Those 20M Americans who stand to get screwed? Sux to be them. Shoulda been Rich. Smaller gubmint & Free Market, Baby!

 

[JSt0rm]

from life

 

[Vic]

The ruling is bizarre. I'm interested to how the Supremes react to this. But what interests me more is Trump's twitter reply effectively promising (threatening) to replace the ACA with universal health care.

 

[UNCjigga]

I'm sure I'm not understanding something here, but the judge's core argument makes me wonder if Republicans can just zero out [insert any tax here] and then file a lawsuit arguing the tax or the law establishing said tax were unconstitutional in the first place??

 

[Vic]

It was a set up by the GOP when they did away with fines for non compliance with the individual mandate.

Those 20M Americans who stand to get screwed? Sux to be them. Shoulda been Rich. Smaller gubmint & Free Market, Baby!

To be fair, this isn't really a free market response either. The people with pre-existing conditions will still get care, albeit inferior and with greater financial stress. What this really does is shift their costs off the insurers and onto the providers and, inevitably, the government.
The insurers are playing the short game though. Life itself is a pre-existing condition, and without the mandate, more of their most profitable customers (young, healthy people) will choose not to pay in, but will need healthcare later in life, while blocking coverage to people with pre-existing conditions means a reduction in their cashflow (because while they may not be profitable, they do pay premiums).

 

[Sonikku]

The ruling is bizarre. I'm interested to how the Supremes react to this. But what interests me more is Trump's twitter reply effectively promising (threatening) to replace the ACA with universal health care.

I thought the Supreme Court already ruled on this? Roberts was the swing vote. In his arguement, that it was not the court's place to "save" the people from laws made by congress and signed into law by the president. His swing vote was granted on the mentality that it was a tax and therefore constitutional.

 

[Engineer]

I thought the Supreme Court already ruled on this? Roberts was the swing vote. In his arguement, that it was not the court's place to "save" the people from laws made by congress and signed into law by the president. His swing vote was granted on the mentality that it was a tax and therefore constitutional.

Didn't the GOP remove the 'tax' (penalty) for this, therefore it's not longer a tax?

As for the comment that cheeto is wanting universal health care, I don't think he has a clue what he's asking for. Remember, this man said that college students could get yearly insurance for $12....so.....

Another FYGM moment...brought to you by those at the top of the GOP.....

(who have convinced those below that "hey, this is great").

People who lose coverage and voted for these assholes get exactly what they deserve.

 

[Jaskalas]

Didn't the GOP remove the 'tax' (penalty) for this, therefore it's not longer a tax?

And this Judge's opinion is... hey, you amended it... so now it all goes?
Ugh, god that's stupid.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Wow, that's a weird one.

ACA challenged over individual mandate.

2012 supreme Court ruling states IM is just a tax, not a (1st?) Ammendment violation.

2016 Pubs pass tax bill that 0's out pentaly for Individual Mandate.

2018 Texas judge says if IM "Tax" is $0, then it's not really a tax and the whole law doesn't work.

What?

Anyhow, I suspect this will fail at the appeals court level, the Supreme court will refuse to hear the case and the status quo will be maintained.

A strong trademark of the Robert's court (open to interpreation of course) is that the Judicary exists only to maintain whether or not a law is constitutional, not whether or not a law is good and the Robert's court has already settled that question with regard to the IM and the ACA.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What a damn shame. I'm sure we can all look to the Courts to fix this fiasco.

 

[dlerious]

Wow, that's a weird one.

ACA challenged over individual mandate.

2012 supreme Court ruling states IM is just a tax, not a (1st?) Ammendment violation.

2016 Pubs pass tax bill that 0's out pentaly for Individual Mandate.

2018 Texas judge says if IM "Tax" is $0, then it's not really a tax and the whole law doesn't work.

What?

Anyhow, I suspect this will fail at the appeals court level, the Supreme court will refuse to hear the case and the status quo will be maintained.

A strong trademark of the Robert's court (open to interpreation of course) is that the Judicary exists only to maintain whether or not a law is constitutional, not whether or not a law is good and the Robert's court has already settled that question with regard to the IM and the ACA.

If the Supreme Court "refuses" to hear the case, the lower court ruling stands - ACA is unconstitutional.

 

[Engineer]

If the Supreme Court "refuses" to hear the case, the lower court ruling stands - ACA is unconstitutional.

I think he/she was stating that it would be overturned at the appeals level and would end there.

 

[Moonbeam]

My understanding is that the judge with with congressional intent, meaning that the entire act was predicated on mandatory enrollment and that once the congress struck that provision as unconstitutional, the entire act, because it was congresses intent to tie the mandatory enrollment into it as vital to making it work, the entire act now is a violation of the original intent of the law and thus the entire act is no longer in accordance with what congress intended. But this argument is the height of stupidity, because it was congress who changed the mandatory enrollment while not changing any other part of the law, so it is in fact exactly now as congress intended,, an update of what it intended before. And since the purpose of the court in interpreting the constitutionality of laws is to do the minimum to bring a law into constitutionality, the judges ruling was a massive improper judicial intervention and will be struck down. We will see.

 

[Sonikku]

Awww, you guys still have complete fate in the courts.

How adorable.

 

[Viper1j]

Good, this is what Americans want, it's what 62 million voted for.

Until their kids start dying..

Karma can be such a little bitch. I could care less, I have VA for life.

I do see a lot of unpaid bills for ER visits in the future though.

Let Donny deal with those.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Until their kids start dying..

Karma can be such a little bitch. I could care less, I have VA for life.

I do see a lot of unpaid bills for ER visits in the future though.

Let Donny deal with those.

All you gotta do is just reference the CDC's maps regarding obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, gets a good chuckle

 

[ch33zw1z]

And how many American didn't vote for it? I personally make sure that I voted, even when I sick at the time to keep shit like this from happening.

It's a sobering reminder of how our election system works. It's not like R's kept their hatred of the ACA secret. You knew if elected, the R's would gut it more and try to get rid of it. They simply don't care. So if people are stupid enough to vote for people who don't care if they die, then whatever. Hope the lesson sticks this time.

 

[fskimospy]

This is a very stupid ruling that will certainly lose on appeal. Ironically, it is also textbook judicial activism which conservatives claim to hate.

1) If a law (the ACA) is constitutional and then congress makes a change to it that makes it unconstitutional it is the change that is unconstitutional, not the underlying act.

2) saying the individual mandate is inseverable from the ACA and that congress couldn’t have intended the law to work without it kind of fails on the fact that Congress explicitly made the mandate null.

3) this also relies on the legal gymnastics that the mandate simultaneously is a burden that forces people to buy insurance but is also unconstitutional because it levies no actual burden. This is legal argle bargle.

Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if this judge is reprimanded in some way for this ruling because it’s not just wrong, it seems to get the basic legal principles of our system wrong.

 

[Viper1j]

It's a sobering reminder of how our election system works. It's not like R's kept their hatred of the ACA secret. You knew if elected, the R's would get it more and try to get rid of it. They simply don't care. So if people are stupid enough to vote for people who don't care if they die, then whatever. Hope the lesson sticks this time.

A little piece of karma for Republicants.

 

[Sunburn74]

Whatever. People get what they voted for. Just another thing to whip up the democratic base for 2020.

 

[kitkat22]

This is scary because a significant amount of people in the US already have preexisting conditions or will:
Hypertension - 33%
Cancer - 38% (life-time risk)
Diabetes - 9.5%
COPD/Emphysema - 5%
Obesity - 33%
Rheumatoid Arthritis - 3%
Hypothyroid/Hyperthyroid - 12%
Osteoarthritis - 12%