I predict House Republicans will use the lame-duck session to once again repeal the ACA.
Menzo
3583
yeah I was thinking about that last night. It would be very much like them to try to make it happen.
Everyone who chooses to spend their time on Earth helping insurance companies deny coverage to vulnerable people goes to the special hell.
Isnāt 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?
Sharpe
3588
That ruling doesnāt 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.
magnet
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 itās for good reason that they donāt make that assumption.
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 didnāt 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 donāt know.
magnet
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.
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?
Scuzz
3593
From what I have seen this morning on CNN and Fox this doesnāt 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 Trumpās 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.
That opinion handed down was non-sensical. Unfortunately it gives the GOP packed SCOTUS to have an excuse to toss out the ACA
Timex
3595
Honestly, i wouldnāt count on the current SCOTUS to back this ruling.
Yep. The Fifth Circuit (which is where this heads next) is conservative, and Iāve 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 ā which may not hear this until or even after 2020 ā 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.
Rock8man
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?
Timex
3598
Yeah. Party of the problem is that the GOP repealed the parts of the ACA that helped pay for stuff, like requiring everyone get insurance. Because everyone liked most of the ACA, they just didnāt like they part that made us pay anythingā¦ Because most voters are dumb as rocks.
So the GOP repealed that partā¦ although, turns out, event without that the insurance companies are still supportive of the ACA.
But this ruling, from what I can see, is kind of a nonsensical rolling that the whole thing is unconstitutional and canāt fall back on the tax definition used to explain the individual mandateā¦ But that part was removed anyway.
I honestly canāt make sense of the ruling. Certainly partly because in not a lawyer, but i think also because it doesnāt make a lot of sense.
Thatās why I donāt that the SCOTUS would support this.
While people try to politicize the SCOTUS, the reality is that all of its members, even Kavannaugh, are serious business jurists. They arenāt partisan hacks.
Donāt agree. Kavanaugh is a partisan warrior. Others, like Gorsuch, are idealogical warriors.
RichVR
3600
Please donāt call them warriors.
I think RBG could swing a two-hander. Maybe not while wearing chainmail.
Anyway, āwarriorsā are the new āactivistsā because saying it makes you sound tough and manly and not Liberal.
