Obamacare is the law of the land


#3578

#3579

#3580

I don’t know how much worse this stuff can get. I am not going to live in a country that re-establishes a new Gilded Age. Ten years ago I walked neighborhoods and knocked on doors for Obama. Six years ago I did it for McCaskill. I don’t have it in me anymore.


#3581

Didn’t work in Montana, though.


#3582

I predict House Republicans will use the lame-duck session to once again repeal the ACA.


#3583

yeah I was thinking about that last night. It would be very much like them to try to make it happen.


#3584

#3585

#3586

Everyone who chooses to spend their time on Earth helping insurance companies deny coverage to vulnerable people goes to the special hell.


#3587

Isn’t there some judicial principle that judges are supposed to read the legislation with the most charitable view? That eg if a law can be rendered constitutional by striking down only a part of it, that they should limit themselves to that small measure?


#3588

That ruling doesn’t follow basic principles of logic, much less judicial principles. Ezra Klein has a good article on this. Also, as that article says, this kind of idiocy only makes some form of Medicare-For-All more likely.


#3589

The former is true. The latter is a different principle, known as separability. A law is only considered separable if the appropriate language is written into the law, charitably notwithstanding.

There are plenty of laws that are intentionally not separable. For instance, imagine a law that raises a tax for funds necessary to build a school. The tax is ruled illegal, but if a judge assumed separability then the school would still be required to build a school. So it’s for good reason that they don’t make that assumption.


#3590

Is that right? I recall that e.g. the Court struck down the requirement in the ACA that states expand Medicaid and instead made it optional, and in so doing they didn’t strike down the entire law. That sounds like they decided that portion was separable. Unless that specific part, and only that part, included separability language, which seems unlikely. But I honestly don’t know.


#3591

Looking into this further, it seems that this is not as clear cut as I supposed. Some courts favor a presumption of severability, if they think the rest of a law works after one part is stuck down. Other courts always strike down the whole law unless there is explicit severability.


#3592

As a practical matter, what states does this decision affect, are the ACA beneficiaries in those states immediately screwed, and what is the next step?


#3593

From what I have seen this morning on CNN and Fox this doesn’t effect anyone who has already signed up for 2019. It will be appealed and most likely will find its way to the SCOTUS.

Fox was covering this kind of strangely, at least for Fox. They announced a poll that showed that only 33% of respondents approved of Trump’s health care conduct. They even had a guy on from Pennsylvania who blamed the GOP because once they had a chance to do what they said they had wanted to do for almost 8 years they had no idea what to do. They had no other viable option ready.


#3594

That opinion handed down was non-sensical. Unfortunately it gives the GOP packed SCOTUS to have an excuse to toss out the ACA


#3595

Honestly, i wouldn’t count on the current SCOTUS to back this ruling.


#3596

Yep. The Fifth Circuit (which is where this heads next) is conservative, and I’ve seen a number of Republican legal experts say the Fifth will likely overturn the ruling, and if that happens, the Supremes are very unlikely to hear it and thus leave the ACA standing.

And on the Supreme Court – which may not hear this until or even after 2020 – currently all five judges who voted the mandate as constitutional, still sit. And Gorsuch may not be a slam dunk on this.

In the meantime, the ACA remains in effect.


#3597

The issue this time is pre-existing conditions, and whether the government has the right to tell insurance companies that they have to cover them, right?