Do not lose sight of the fact that the legal challenges the ACA is facing go back to the sloppy behavior of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deciding to jam a very complex and controversial piece of legislation through along party lines. Their imprecision on the law required Justice Roberts to manufacture a tedious rationale to preserve it as a tax which has just been correctly knee capped in court
1
I thought that Supreme Court had ruled - quite a few years ago - that the mandate was legal. Chief Justice Roberts opined then that it was a form of taxation, which is a legal function of gov't. These endless lawsuits justify the general cynicism and disdain that people have for the legal profession. A good lawyer could prove anything to a jury: say, that the sun revolves around the earth and that a week has 8 days.
10
A zealous Republican district judge in Texas took advantage of the opportunity to give Republicans what they've been unsuccessfully trying to do for a decade. Like his Republican colleagues in Congress, he ignored law, precedent, and logic in favor of partisan ideology and racist spite and took down the entire "socialist takeover of health care."
On appeal, the panel consisted of 2 Republican ideologues and one Democrat. The Republicans, whose loyalty would normally require them to affirm the Texas decision, were in a quandary. If they affirmed the Texas zealot's decision going into an election year it would likely harm Republicans, who lost the House in 2018 to Democrats running on health care. But they couldn't reject it either, as that would once more break the promise of repeal on which Republicans (who lack any ideas besides tax cuts for the wealthy) had been campaigning for a decade.
So they decided on the course that would be best for the party they were appointed to serve. They sent the case back to the Texas zealot, with instructions to come up with a better-reasoned decision to kill Obamacare. That kept the destruction of Obamacare and its resulting chaos out of the election cycle, but gave Republicans an opportunity to destroy it after the election, preferably when Republicans resumed their rightful control of Congress during Trump's second term.
Another good day for Republicans. Another bad day for the institutions and norms that once defined "America."
22
None of this would have happened if the original ACA legislation had included a severability clause. All competent contracts and legislation contains a severability clause. I don't know why this mistake was made but it is a history-making error.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-glitch-that-allows-the-supreme-court-to-throw-out-all-of-obamacare
3
Obama sacrificed his entire presidency for the sake of passing the health care bill. He lost all his power and Congress over it and fought a do-nothing GOP Congress for 6 years with very few legislative accomplishments to show for it. The American people have no one but themselves to blame.
6
@Lila Bear: Obama, honorably, fulfilled a commitment, and the Republicans exposed their true nature. Should he have done "politics as usual" by delaying ot delivering more of the same token half measures we've come to expect?
You're right about voters having to blame themselves though. They don't seem to mind reelecting "do nothing" congressional & senatorial members. McConnell got, and stays in control of a "legislative graveyard" because that's what we're "O.K." with.
14
The certainties in this are:
1. The courts will not save us from our follies; and therefore,
2. Vote Democrat.
31
Well, this makes healthcare front and center for Democrats. Use it to your advantage.
19
"Trillions for Defense, (see Afghanistan, Iraq.)
But not a penny for healthcare!"
Is this the GOP motto!
31
This means I can drop my car insurance.
13
My obtuse brain doesn't understand the fine legal logic behind this decision -- that requiring health insurance is unconstitutional, although requiring automobile insurance is not.
As I understand it, car owners must carry liability insurance so that if they wreck someone else's ride, their insurance will cover it, else it would fall on the taxpayer. Or someone.
Now tell me --- if someone without health insurance gets sick, doesn't that cost ultimately fall on the taxpayer? (I mean the residual bill, after the individual is bankrupted.) Alternatively, the hospital eats it.
How do these scenarios differ?
31
Judges playing with people's lives. Clearly, if the court wanted to rule according to logic and precedent, they would have ruled that only the penalty was struck, not the entire program. But these are Republicans we are dealing with. Republicans who disdain poor people, can't share a dime, and only care about themselves. Then, they have the audacity to call themselves Christians. God will not be kind.
16
I believe the case will be heavily influenced by a matter outside the law. Typically, when a huge government program is challenged it has barely gone into effect. Most notably, Social Security was unsuccessfuly challenged twice right away. Other challenges could have been brought but they were not.
Whatever merits of this case, the challenge comes very late. Tens of millions of people are now covered, all of whom stand to lose coverage. A decision to bar a program early on does not derail those who have already invested. This decision is entirely different. If you overturn a program before it has gotten going, few with entrenched interests are harmed. Here, tens of millions could take to the streets.
This matter is not a legal matter that would be stated in an opinion. But it is common sense that every Justice recognizes. Facing tens of millions on the streets between their homes and the Court is bound to influence the decision of each and every Justice.
3
The preventative services mandate is a huge feature of the ACA on it's own. It has no relation to the tax for going without insurance.
8
The mistake in the ACA is simple and simple to fix: Instead of mandating coverage, it should be revised to mandate that no institution using public funds may treat anyone seeking medical treatment unless they are insured somehow. Charitable institutions may pick up some of the cases, but not being funded by the full public, will not be able to take care of everyone who needs care. As long as Medicare or ACA subsidies are available, it would be un-American to require people to buy insurance even if it means they might die or become disabled due to their own refusal to accept coverage. Or would it?
2
interestingly, Trumps justice dept and the right wing GOP AG's behind this suit will now have to take a position on the popular provisions of the ACA. what will they say of protections on pre-existing conditions etc? Perhaps they will be flushed out now that they cant hide behind a conservative objection to the Mandate. These briefs should be filed before the election.
13
@rd - They'll continue to claim, as they have been doing all along, that Republicans will protect people with pre-existing conditions. But their only "solution," and only if forced into it, will be to set up subsidized high risk policies, meaning taxpayers pay for the sickest people while protecting insurance companies from taking the hit. But we've had numerous states try this ploy, and every time, it turns out to be too expensive, and in general, before the end of the first year of the policy, the program runs out of money, leaving many desperate, very ill people without coverage.
6
I had two thoughts aboit this ruling. First, it is ridiculous that it has taken a decade to get resolution on this point. Justice should be reasonably swift and fair.
Secondly, I think the court was deliberately unclear about the broader ramifications of the ruling.while some judges on the left and right seem to relish imposing their views on the general public, I think that most of them prefer this type of decision (is the ACA constitutional or not) to be resolved by the executive and legislative branches, both of whom are elected by the voters. The unfortunate thing is that these two branches have become very, very dysfunctional.
That’s my two cents worth.
6
Funny, my state requires me to have auto insurance for our cars and also liability insurance for my business. I am no lawyer but how come this isn't unconstitutional but requiring insurance for health care is unconstitutional?
43
@scott t Different circumstances. Your state requires you to have automotive insurance in order to acquire a license to drive or car registration or whatever certificatiion it is that they use as a lever, and driving a car without a license or registration is a statutory crime. As far as I can figure, there's nothing equivalent at the federal level that you could attach to that wouldn't be entirely specious (and would then likely be struck for that reason).
The analogy to think of here is to imagine that citizenship is something renewable that you pay for every year, and you get a little certificate. It's established to be legal that you could attach a requirement to that certificate that's related to the subject of the certificate, so the government could attach a requirement that you be able to pay for your own health care (through insurance for the sweeping majority of people), but that's not how citizenship works.
4
You can opt out of driving. You can opt out of owning a business. The mandate was not something one could opt out of.
From a legal standpoint, there are laws and fines associated with driving without insurance. The punishment is conditional upon driving without the pre-requisite. As I understood it, the healthcare mandate had no condition that it was not applicable. You could hope the fine would not be levied if you were below the income threshold, but at that point what is the legal difference in it just being a tax upon income above a certain?
That being said, the entire Obamacare scheme is a forced subsidy to insurance corporations. A singleplayer system or government option will be preferable. As it is right now, a mandate is nothing more than an indirect subsidy of insurance profits and anyone else they do business with. I am happy the mandate has been voided.
9
What about a one-cent mandate?
As I understand the reasoning of the trial court judge, since Congress reduced the penalty for failing to sign up for health insurance to zero, the mandate was no longer a tax and therefore the SCOTUS ruling that ACA was constitutional based on Congressional taxing power was invalid. So if Congess restored the penality to be one cent (or some small amonut), would not that revive the taxing power -- and thus blunt this line of attach on constitutionality? The House, as presently constituted, clearly would do so -- handing a very hot political potato to Mitch McConnell and GOP senators.
10
Stories such of this demonstrate why paying attention to the 24 hour continuous news cycle are a waste of time. I read the first story a day prior on this topic and gave up two thirds of the way through as I couldn't get useful information out of it, other than Obamacare was still in play in the courts. Now I know why. Even the experts don't really know what the appeals court ruling means. Has anyone ever calculated the economic cost over the anxiety caused over the future of health care in the country. Not to mention the number of enterprising people who might have started their own business voluntarily, if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. You would thing the GOP would be behind a national healthcare plan as it would free business to concentrate on being businesses and not social safety networks for their employees.
33
@ws Sorry about the typos.
1
Our courts are biased towards those who benefit from waiting for a result and against those who are hurt by waiting. This means they are biased towards those who have deep pockets. Some view this bias as a feature, others as a bug.
Courts should be honest about this bias and look for ways to reduce or eliminate it. Decisions about whether and how we the people provide heath care to those who need it, should not be made on the basis of arcane legal maneuvers and strategies.
A few years of uncertainty about the future of Obamacare benefits neither the providers nor the recipients of health care. By making the ongoing operation of the health care system more difficult and planning for its future virtually impossible, the uncertainty benefits only those who wish to get government out of health care by making sure that its operations do not work well.
14
@sdavidc9 I don't think that I would agree. If a party to litigation would be irreparably harmed by a delay in adjudication, there are methods that party can use to request a stay or injunction - witness the disclosure of Donald Trump's tax returns, the subpoena for which have decidedly not been quashed but the execution stayed.
This might harm litigants who do not have access to adequate representation, but I wouldn't call it that party's biggest problem in that scenario.
How about answering (or at least asking) the key question, in a heading: What does this mean for the future of the law?
6
Zeroing our the tax doesn’t mean the law for the tax has been nullified, just that the rate is set to zero.
10