I predict House Republicans will use the lame-duck session to once again repeal the ACA.
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.
Isnât 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?
That ruling doesnât 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.
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 itâs for good reason that they donât 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 didnât 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 donât know.
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?
From what I have seen this morning on CNN and Fox this doesnât 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 Trumpâs 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
Honestly, i wouldnât count on the current SCOTUS to back this ruling.
Yep. The Fifth Circuit (which is where this heads next) is conservative, and Iâve 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 â which may not hear this until or even after 2020 â 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.
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?
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 didnât like they part that made us pay anything⌠Because most voters are dumb as rocks.
So the GOP repealed that part⌠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 canât fall back on the tax definition used to explain the individual mandate⌠But that part was removed anyway.
I honestly canât make sense of the ruling. Certainly partly because in not a lawyer, but i think also because it doesnât make a lot of sense.
Thatâs why I donât 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 arenât partisan hacks.
Donât agree. Kavanaugh is a partisan warrior. Others, like Gorsuch, are idealogical warriors.
Please donât call them warriors.
I think RBG could swing a two-hander. Maybe not while wearing chainmail.
Anyway, âwarriorsâ are the new âactivistsâ because saying it makes you sound tough and manly and not Liberal.