Good Riddance to Obamacare
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Surprise, surprise. Obamacare, aka the Affordable [sic] Care Act, is dead , pending a possible Supreme Court review.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth sided with the argument put forward by a coalition of Republican-leaning states, led by Texas, that Obamacare could no longer stand now that there's no penalty for Americans who don't buy insurance.
The U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the law in 2012, by classifying the legislation as a tax. But since Congress removed the individual mandate in 2017, O’Connor ruled, there's no way the ACA can be allowed to stand.
Arrivederci, sayonara, good-bye, we hardly knew ya. Is there anybody currently breathing who actually understands the details of Obamacare? Nancy "You Have to Pass It in Order to Understand It" Pelosi certainly didn't and I doubt she does now, even as she presumably ascends once more to speaker of the House.
Maybe Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel — the putative architect of the ACA — does, but he was about as intelligible as a Martian speaking Sanskrit when trying to explain it on television. (Giving Emanuel his due, he's said some pretty interesting things about the obsolescence of hospitals lately.)
Actually, the legislation was the kludge of kludges, the Rube Goldberg machine of Rube Goldberg machines. Neither unfettered free market, nor socialist single payer, it was nothing. Just an inscrutable headache. (Of course, some say that was deliberate. It was built to fail so that it could be replaced by single-payer. But they didn't think a judge would disallow it.)
The only part of this legislation people seemed to like — in fact, the only part they seem to remember, if you listen to the talking heads — was the requirement to insure those with pre-existing conditions (cancer, heart disease, etc.).
This one aspect of the ACA remains crucial and is considered just by a large percentage of the population. Republicans would be well-advised to move on preserving this requirement immediately and find a way to codify it with new legislation. Yes, this judicial decision was a surprising turn of events, but that should be the impetus to act more quickly, even during the lame-duck session.
Indeed, the GOP would be smart to move swiftly to draft new targeted healthcare legislation that includes one or two other popular favorites, such as the ability to seek insurance across state lines, creating competition, and lowering prices.
The Democrats are likely — scratch that — certain to yell and scream about the "unfairness" of the end of Obamacare but will (eagerly) instantly move on to their beloved socialized medicine. (Cue Ocasio-Cortez.)
Republicans have to head this off at the pass if they wish to preserve free market medicine. Free market (capitalist-based) medicine has been vastly more important to everyone's health than most realize, because it has been the impetus for many of the extraordinary high-tech inventions and advanced pharmaceuticals that have driven the life expectancy of Americans ever higher (until now, with the opioid crisis, alas). Moreover, it has induced many of our most intelligent people to be doctors. Don't we want our best and brightest in that role? Without a free market, it wouldn't be that way.
There is no final solution to healthcare. It is a commodity there never will be enough of. But we already have a form of socialized medicine in Medicaid. We should strengthen it. The best way to make that happen is through the free market system.
By the way, Chuck Schumer, ever the political hack, has just announced the judge's decision is a disaster for Americans with pre-existing conditions, even though Trump has said umpteen times, including in a tweet minutes ago, that he adamantly favors preserving insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. Good ol' Chuck.
Roger L. Simon — co-founder and CEO Emeritus of PJ Media — is an author and screenwriter.
Tags
Who is online
49 visitors
“Republicans would be well-advised to move on preserving this requirement immediately and find a way to codify it with new legislation. Yes, this judicial decision was a surprising turn of events, but that should be the impetus to act more quickly, even during the lame-duck session.
Indeed, the GOP would be smart to move swiftly to draft new targeted healthcare legislation that includes one or two other popular favorites, such as the ability to seek insurance across state lines, creating competition, and lowering prices.
The Democrats are likely — scratch that — certain to yell and scream about the "unfairness" of the end of Obamacare but will (eagerly) instantly move on to their beloved socialized medicine. (Cue Ocasio-Cortez.)
Republicans have to head this off at the pass if they wish to preserve free market medicine. Free market (capitalist-based) medicine has been vastly more important to everyone's health than most realize, because it has been the impetus for many of the extraordinary high-tech inventions and advanced pharmaceuticals that have driven the life expectancy of Americans ever higher (until now, with the opioid crisis, alas). Moreover, it has induced many of our most intelligent people to be doctors. Don't we want our best and brightest in that role? Without a free market, it wouldn't be that way.”
It's going to take a whole lot more than a crazy right wing judge to kill PPACA.
The judges decision is legally sound and correct. Considering that the Supreme Court already said Obamacare was unconstitutional via the commerce clause and now that the tax that justifies its constitutional standing is gone, the whole thing is void. That is constitutional law. The Supremes will have to re invent another way to save it. It’s likely that the Appeals court for that region will back the judges correct ruling.
The Supremes won't touch this one, but it will be overturned on appeal. Terrible ruling exceeding the scope of the case.
Actually that ruling is exactly the one that the plaintiffs in the case were seeking. The judge ruled that all the GOP state attorneys general were correct in their assertions on constitutional grounds.
Wait and see. He went far beyond the scope of the case and even republicans are nervous. Even conservatives are saying he went too far.
the coolest thing about the potential legal fallout concerning this ruling is that 95% [Removed] that fought the ACA probably have pre-existing conditions by now. bwah ha ha, buh-bye
Any new plan to replace Obamacare will include pre existing conditions coverage as part of it. There is bipartisan agreement on that piece of it. Now the whole fix will have to be bipartisan. Sorry but we who opposed Obamacare are not going to as the democrat congressman from Florida infamously said, “die quickly”.
keep on telling yourself that. just remember POS/POTUS promised a new plan will be better and cheaper.
Why the hell would you think that? They have had decades to come up with a plan, and 2 years of total control to do it. They can't because they have no fucking plan better than the ACA! Trumpubs own this clusterfuck all the way.
The rising costs of Health CARE needs to be addressed in two ways.
One - Regulation on Health Insurance. This is what the PPACA attempted to address and this is what is failing. In order to cover pre-existing conditions...HEALTHY people must also be required to purchase Health Insurance. This spreads the costs among consumers...somewhat.
When regulating Health Insurance - REMOVE the word affordable Health Care. Paying Health Insurance Premiums does not guarantee AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE. Find a way to cover the gap between those who qualify for Medicaid and those who simply can't afford the premiums to cover their family. Expanded Medicaid wasn't the answer. Don't lay this on Employers...figure it out!
Two - Address the REAL drivers of Health CARE - Physicians, Hospitals, Pharmaceuticals, etc. Until this Nation finds a way to control the rising costs...Health Insurance premiums will continue to rise.
Instead of focusing on a Third Party Private Product - Health Insurance...start looking at Physicians, Hospitals and Pharmaceuticals. Inserting a Third Party is NEVER cheaper.
some seem to forget that medi CARE has some limitations as well, such as age to be enrolled , usually its 65 though there are some exceptions for the disabled or chronically ill , there is also some surgical limitations , Medicare will limit surgeries dependant on a persons age , makes no sense to do a heart or liver transplant on someone at the end of their lifespan.
another thing forgotten is that it is paid for over 20-30-40 or more years of working.
Lets say this mediCARE type system for all comes into being, how much will be taken from every working persons paycheck along with what they pay for the current medicare system/program? how much would be acceptable and how much will the line be where people balk? The amount of funds available will dictate how much will be shelled out , and that will lead to some denial of coverage or services , even if its government controlled.