Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A judge has ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional, putting the future of the federal healthcare law in jeopardy.

The case, which was argued Sept. 5, is likely to face an appeal. The decision was issued by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas, an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

Texas v. Azar was filed by 20 Republican state officials, who have asked that all of Obamacare be thrown out as a consequence of the new tax law, which zeroed out a penalty on the uninsured. The officials argued that the fine was central to making the rest of the law work, and that without it, the rest should crumble.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... titutional

The beginning of the end...

Will the SCOTUS get it right this time?

Ivytalk wrote:Will the SCOTUS get it right this time?

They'll boof it up.

Well, the judge ruled the changes Republicans made in 2017 made it unconstitutional.

The mandate was enforced by a tax. SCOTUS previously ruled that because it had a tax, it was a federal power and not reserved to the states in the 10th amendment. Now that it doesn't have the associated tax - it's more likely that SCOTUS will invalidate the entire law. Especially since DOJ isn't arguing for it.

This was the plan when Republicans couldn't come up with a decent replacement on their own... just remove the mandate, make it unconstitutional, and blow it up.

If SCOTUS does rule it unconstitutional - will be interesting to see how a D House and R Senate come up with a solution.

~20% of our economy. ~100 million nonelderly Muricans with declinable preexisting conditions. No solution on the horizon...

Skjellyfetti wrote:
This was the plan when Republicans couldn't come up with a decent replacement on their own... just remove the mandate, make it unconstitutional, and blow it up.

John Roberts gave them the roadmap to do it. Recall that he was the guy on SCOTUS who came up with the Admiral Akbar “it’s a tax!” argument as a backstop when the Commerce Clause argument failed.

People will get treated either way. We will have to pay for that that treatment either way. Do it as charity or require people to have some skin in the game? It's a tough choice.

Maybe Congress will get together and come up with a solution. If not, watch what happens in 2020 after millions of people lose their insurance.

AshevilleApp wrote:People will get treated either way. We will have to pay for that that treatment either way. Do it as charity or require people to have some skin in the game? It's a tough choice.

Maybe Congress will get together and come up with a solution. If not, watch what happens in 2020 after millions of people lose their insurance.

Yep. This is really going to blow up in the cheeto's face it it holds up.

What a poorly reasoned decision. If a law student handed this is as his answer to essay exam, he might be prodded into another career.

Even if you hold the individual mandate, without a non-compliance tax, is unconstitutional, the Court provides no analysis as to why the whole of the ACA fails. The individual mandate can be stricken from the ACA. It may have been a very important part of the original ACA. The failure of many young people to participate will adversely affect cost for participants. But the the ACA, even without the individual mandate, can still provide markets for those otherwise non-covered individuals and families; and define the scope of mandated coverage.

This decision strikes me as ironic. When the original ACA went to the Supreme Court, those opposing the ACA argued that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, because the commerce clause did not extend to the point that congress could compel an individual to participate in commerce.

And now the ACA is unconstitutional because it does not have an individual mandate enforced by a non-compliance tax.

Yup, crappy decision. Just because you're a Federal Judge it doesn't mean you can't be dumb. Plenty of crappy judges slip through the cracks.

The endgame hasn't changed. I say before 2030, and likely sooner, there will be an America-version of the UK's NHS and single payer will be the law of the land. It's just inevitable so just do it and try to make it as good as you can.

JoltinJoe wrote:What a poorly reasoned decision. If a law student handed this is as his answer to essay exam, me might be prodded into another career.

Even if you hold the individual mandate, without a non-compliance tax, is unconstitutional, the Court provides no analysis as to why the whole of the ACA fails. The individual mandate can be stricken from the ACA. It may have been a very important part of the original ACA. The failure of many young people to participate will adversely affect cost for participants. But the the ACA, even without the individual mandate, can still provide markets for those otherwise non-covered individuals and families; and define the scope of mandated coverage.

This decision strikes me as ironic. When the original ACA went to the Supreme Court, those opposing the ACA argued that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, because the commerce clause did not extend to the point that congress could compel an individual to participate in commerce.

And now the ACA is unconstitutional because it does not have an individual mandate enforced by a non-compliance tax.

Joe,
I thought the commerce clause DID allow for Congress or the State
(some federal or state body) to compel individual participation

Now i'm confused