Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal judge in Texas late Friday threw the health coverage of some 20 million Americans in limbo by ruling Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage!
The invalidation of the landmark 2010 law is certain to send shock waves through the U.S. health system and Washington after a midterm election seen in part as a rebuke to Republican efforts to tear down Obamacare.
The decision will be immediately appealed, said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of blue states in intervening to defend the law. It could ultimately become the third major Obamacare case to be taken up by the Supreme Court, which has twice voted to uphold the law.
U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee in Fort Worth, Texas, issued the decision gutting the law in response to a lawsuit from 20 conservative-led states that sought to have the Affordable Care Act tossed out. They successfully argued that the mandate penalty was a critical linchpin of the law and that without it, the entire frameworks is rendered unconstitutional.
“In sum, the Individual Mandate ‘is so interwoven with [the ACA’s] regulations that they cannot be separated. None of them can stand,’” O’Connor wrote in his decision.
The decision came a little more than 24 hours before the sign-up period for 2019 Obamacare coverage is set to close.
Republicans zeroed out the mandate penalty as part of their 2017 overhaul of the tax code. It’s slated to disappear next year.
The Justice Department took the unusual stance of partially siding with the conservative states seeking to strike down the law. As a result, 16 mostly Democratic-led states intervened in the case to try and save Obamacare. But O’Connor didn’t agree with their argument that by striking the tax penalty but leaving the rest of the federal health care law in place, Congress had clearly indicated its belief that they weren’t inseparable.
Many legal experts are skeptical that the lawsuit will ultimately succeed. But the victory at the lower court level means that there will be a cloud hanging over the future of the law for months, if not years, to come.
House Democrats, who won back the chamber after campaigning heavily on defending protections for pre-existing conditions, have been weighing different options for saving Obamacare when their new majority is seated early next month. One possibility is passing a resolution authorizing the House general counsel to defend the health care law on the chamber's behalf.
The ruling puts the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers in a bind. They've promised to save pre-existing condition protections if the court threw them out, but for years been unable to agree on an Obamacare alternative that would maintain the law's stringent safeguards.
Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who oversees Obamacare's insurance marketplaces, told reporters late last month the administration had a back-up plan if the court overturned the law. She declined to provide specifics at the time.
Neither the White House nor HHS immediately responded to requests for comment.
Tags
Who is online
98 visitors
A federal judge in Texas late Friday threw the health coverage of some 20 million Americans in limbo by ruling Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage!
Wow, but not surprisingly, ObamaCare was just ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a highly respected judge in Texas. Great news for America!
SCOTUS twice ruled it constitutional. Scotus is more highly respected everywhere, with the possible exception of Texas, lol
They didn't rule on this. All major news sources are reporting on this.
i know, it's been all over that archaic thing called TV, lol
Yes! 🥳 🎊 🎉 🥂
Still paying a premium for using punctuation this late at night on your cell phone?
You should really shop around for a better carrier.
/s
Typical conservative celebration of millions of Americans losing their health coverage. And Texas is about the worst, high rate of uninsured CHILDREN and adults, with lives lost that could be saved. At a lower cost, I might add. just what the country needs. Pro-life my ass.
MAGA adores the fetus. Get with the program or defect to Norway.
s/
Now the democrat house and GOP senate will have to create their own bills to replace it and then go to conference in regular order and get administration input like should have been done in the first place.
Like the Heritage Foundation did all those years ago,
and like we have all of those years of Romneycare to evaluate?
Obamacare failed because the GOP refused to let Obama take their ideas and be successful.
there's no need to rewrite much, we just have to name it Trumpcare and all will be 100% biggly fixed, better and historical.
Be Best!
Do I really need a /S
The PPACA should have been ruled unconstitutional in the first place; but Roberts and the other 4 in the majority contorted themselves into allowing it to go forward as a tax. The problem is that it was a penalty and was instituted based on the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. The main problem with that interpretation is that while plans may have the same names in each state they are offered, most states have very different regulations regarding how insurance plans are implemented. For example, HealthNet might offer a plan they call Orange in Washington, Oregon, and California; but in each state it is different as to what it will actually cover and its costs in terms of premium, OOP, and deductible.
The irony of the so-called mandate is that it is usually much cheaper to be penalized than to carry insurance unless you are constantly going to doctors offices for check-ups and blood tests. It actually does nothing to really encourage people to get insurance and is essentially a huge money grab by the government. Heck, the PPACA was already collapsing due to all but one of the CO-OPs going bankrupt and the lack of subsidies being available to offset the costs to insurers to comply with the PPACA. The other problem that the PPACA manifested were the good employer plans with $0 deductibles were being eliminated and having $1500 deductible plans taking their places. That is bad for businesses as those with great generosity realized it wasn't worth paying the $1500 deductible for the most part and passed part if not all of that cost to their employees.
This too. Perhaps it is time to accept the fact that 'health care' is not a right but a privilege only to be enjoyed by those who have the means to accept the financial responsibility.
After all, people and families that can not afford the high cost of insurance, or choose to not sign up, obviously fall into the 'lesser category' of upstanding American citizens.
If low income Americans are unable or refuse to allocate 30-50% of their income to the Insurance Industry Cartels, perhaps their patriotism should be questioned.
Should the image of this Texas judge be carved into Mt. Rushmore next to the Trumps?
s/
And, here are the problems with the quoted thought:
1) Doctors' oaths require them to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay
2) The PPACA only addressed HEALTH INSURANCE, not health care.
3) Insurance does not equate to health care. Just because your car is covered by auto insurance, it doesn't mean that the plan will pay for any damage you get in an accident. The same holds true for getting sick and going to the doctor or hospital.
4) There is still no incentive for people outside of Medicaid recipients to get health insurance. The Medicaid recipients get FREE health care anyways for the most part as their state picks up the tab. Meanwhile, those on Medicare, still have to pay 20% of doctors fees and hospital fees. If they have Part D, their prescription costs vary until they get to the donut hole. If they hit the donut hole, they have to pay full price. But, despite most Medicare recipients being on fixed incomes, they have to just deal with it or apply for Medicaid.
Well that there seems to be a HUGE problem in a capitalistic society does't it Tom?
If you could fix that or find an acceptable workaround the rest would not be an issue, would it?
No, it is not a problem in a capitalistic society. The problem comes from administrators, like Michelle Obama, whose sole goal is to make money instead of helping people. Or, did you forget that Michelle Obama once was Vice President of the University of Chicago Medical Center and created a program to steer poor people to other facilities?
Wow! A 10 year old article so you can slam the Obamas...
Are you denying she did as stated or defending her actions then?
Nope, I wasn't slamming the Obamas. I was slamming Michelle for ACTIONS she took as an Administrator which were in direct contravention of the oaths of doctors in order to make her hospital increase profits.
And her last name is?
Funny how a 10 year old article just happened to pass your way that happened to involve Michell Obama...
Gee, what are the chances?
Oh, just because she completed the actions I was talking about and was famous doesn't mean that I was hitting the Obamas. She was just the most PROMINENT example of a Hospital Administrator trying to make money by not treating the poor.
Nice Semantics, Tom
The Administrator's job is to minimize losses. Funny how the "medical professionals" who were complaining that UCMC was "dumping patients on them"
didn't want to take any losses either. Many urban areas full of uninsured people were (are still) using the local hospital ER as their primary care provider.
That was the whole point of the ACA, get 99% of the population onto some sort of healthcare like the other top most developed countries in the world.
The Obama ACA only got the US to 91% healthcare coverage as a nation, while the rest did without or payed the fines, or both.
Now, admittedly the greatest country on the planet within written history, will take away coverage from 20 million families.
Maga /s
Having no health insurance or health insurance that doesn't cover preexisting conditions is the republican's strategy for population control and reduction in human capital. It's been their plan well before the ACA.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this decision.
Congress could make all of this moot by passing something that works better, but neither party seems too interested.
There’s only one right way way to fix US healthcare, but it’s crystal clear that conservatives will never accept it. This is why Obamacare was born. It’s a step in the right direction, but it didn’t solve the root problem that is unique to this country.
When you let a private industry set the prices for a product, it will typically regulate itself. If the price for a widget is unreasonably high, less people will opt to buy widgets and the industry will correct itself by lowering the price to something more reasonable and thereby boosting their demand and subsequently their bottom line. The rest of the developed world has figured out that healthcare is not a widget. America has a uniquely careless attitude about the well being of our fellow citizens, and conservatives here see your health as their ticket to their wealth.
I modified your sentence just a little. I LOVE your statement. It sums it up so well. This is the new catchy term that democrats should use when describing the conservative position on the importance of healthcare. $$$$ profit = GOP support
I suppose your version is more apropos. I bet most people don’t fully grasp just how deeply healthcare is embedded in the functioning of our economy, regardless of party affiliation. All one needs to do is read into the details of all the investment options that are available in their 401k plan. The majority of mine involve healthcare, particularly the ones that have the best rate of return. Profit is embedded into US healthcare like a cancer.
That's exactly right Hal, well stated!
Good news is, this judge just handed a sure-fire presidential win to the Dems in 2020.
Conservatives just don't get why they had their asses handed to them. That's a good thing.
"Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage!"
Hear, hear !
Oh the outrage that comes from this.
I always find it funny when Liberal Types have this need to treat human beings as "Inanimate Objects" ……. Like "Cars" !
Why is it, Liberal Types most favorite phrase is …….. "You WILL Pay" ?
Because you will, we all do and we must pay our share, whether we like it or not to run a well-oiled machine. We are the United States. This is the easy cost of being a part of this amazing collective.
You seemingly only want collectivism when you want your fellow countrymen to pay for your wars with their checkbooks and their lives. When not to that use, its fuck everyone else and their well being, it is all about you and your complaints about doing your part.
Even the Vikings figured it out. We are stronger together when everyone has a fair chance at quality of life. To have that chance, means we have each others backs which means we all pay.
Forcing the "Poor" to PAY, that couldn't afford it in the first place …… Shame on Liberals. FOR SHAME ! They're supposed to be "Protecting" the poor folks of the WORLD !
Two problems with your take, the poor are not paying if they are poor. And why do we have poor in the first place? Unfettered capitalism that forces a dog eat dog existence. This is due to lack of education overall, but also due to the spin by the right in the belief that if you work hard enough for someone else, you aren't deserving for more than them. When the truth is, they (job creators) can't exist without the support of the blue collar work force. People are the cogs in the wheel. Pay them fairly, pay your fair share and it finds balance.
You support unfettered capitalism. Is it it's ok with you that GE and Google as examples don't pay federal taxes? Why do you support welfare to corporations that don't need it but not for people who do? Look at the sugar industry for example.
The "Fine", The "Fine", , Boss da "Fine" !
Unless they just said FU to Big Gov..
[Removed]
"Understanding" is supposed to be "Fundamental' though !
What happened !
[Deleted]
What happened is a failure to communicate sensibly on your part.
If I could read your mind, what a tale your thoughts could tell huh !
It is capitalism that got so many poor people around the world into the middle class. Nothing has eradicated as much poverty in the world as capitalism has.
There is a difference between capitalism and unfettered capitalism.
What was the tax rate on the rich during the first 100 years, especially the founding years? I want to hear you tell me what you know about the whys and how the founding fathers did what they could to diminish aristocracy.
Obsfucating using some nonsensical word salad is not communicating. I believe you can do better than 8.14.
If you could read my mind, you'd not be finding tales, but reality. That's why I questioned if you were high. Not as an attack. I don't read jabberwocky well. Reads like you are stoned out of your gourd. What the hell else could it be if not a failure to communicate, an obsfucation and now more word games? Ever hear "say what you mean and mean what you say"? If you have a point, make it clearly and precisely, or quit.
How can you say that in all honesty. You think I'm on something, and that's ALL YOU THINK YOU KNOW. You know NOTHING ELSE about me, as you keep posting.
Case in point.
Thank You for agreeing !
no such thing...
all people have never gotten fair/equal chances or results from life.
Fine, then you can build and pay for your own fucking wall.
I was of the understanding payment was all worked out.
i luv the way Trump is upset about President Fox's disgusting language,
what a bad Joke
it is... and mexico is already "paying for it" and they will pay even more in many ways before it is over.
the misunderstanding starts when some fool thinks trump meant mexico would write us a check.
.no one I know or have met IRL thought trump meant that mexico would write us a check.
which is why your argument falls on deaf ears.
seems only liberals thought trump meant mexico would write a check....
there are many ways to force mexico to pay for their actions or lack thereof that does not include getting a check from them in the mail. and trust me... they are paying now and will pay even more one way or another.
anytime I have told someone "they are going to pay for that" I did not mean they would be paying me in cash. I took it out of their ass against their will using the method which provided me the most fun in the process.
maybe.... just maybe.... "they will pay for it" has multiple interpretations huh?
I reckon so....
I'll bet as your neighbors they love you for that. Probably still do all they can to help you in the future too.
now, we are talkin about neighbors?
my neighbors never piss me off
but when I catch one crossing my fence illegally? I will get back to ya on this one
I wonder how many seniors realize they are in for a bit of a shock with this ruling. They might want to check out their drug costs if this ruling is upheld on appeal.