- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Can someone please explain the recent Obamacare ruling?
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:14 am
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:14 am
So a judge in Texas ruled Obamacare unconstitutional... my questions are...
Why did it take 5+ years to determine it was unconstitutional?
What happens to Obamacare now that this judge made his ruling?
Why did it take 5+ years to determine it was unconstitutional?
What happens to Obamacare now that this judge made his ruling?
6
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:16 am to MileHighDraw
SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare was constitutional with the individual mandate attached because it was seen by the Roberts Court as a tax. The individual mandate was removed from the law by Congress within the last year. As a result, the federal judge in Texas ruled the entire law unconstitutional because the tax (individual mandate) was no longer part of the law.
This ruling will eventually have to be heard again by the Supreme Court.
This ruling will eventually have to be heard again by the Supreme Court.
This post was edited on 12/16/18 at 10:17 am
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:18 am to MileHighDraw
TLDR version
Individual mandate was repealed in the tax law. Roberts upheld the ACA based on twisting the mandate into a tax. Without the mandate states again sued that the law was unconstitutional and this judge agreed.
Obamacare stays as this works it’s way back to SCOTUS. Ultimately it will be struck down or Roberts will humiliate himself again.
Individual mandate was repealed in the tax law. Roberts upheld the ACA based on twisting the mandate into a tax. Without the mandate states again sued that the law was unconstitutional and this judge agreed.
Obamacare stays as this works it’s way back to SCOTUS. Ultimately it will be struck down or Roberts will humiliate himself again.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:21 am to DallasTiger11
quote:
Roberts will humiliate himself again.
Should be impeached if he does.
On another note, it'll take probably a year or more for this to work its way up the ladder. Will the GOP as per usual be caught with their pants down an not have a suitable replacement bill in place?
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:22 am to DallasTiger11
quote:Now that people aren't forced onto it for fear of penalty, in what way did they rule it unconstitutional?
Without the mandate states again sued that the law was unconstitutional and this judge agreed.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:25 am to RollTide1987
Yes,
The original 2012 ruling conditioned the constitutionality of the ACA on it being a tax.
In 2017 Congress took away the tax.
Therefore, the condition the ACA's constitutionality depended on is now gone.
The original 2012 ruling conditioned the constitutionality of the ACA on it being a tax.
In 2017 Congress took away the tax.
Therefore, the condition the ACA's constitutionality depended on is now gone.
This post was edited on 12/16/18 at 10:27 am
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:26 am to DallasTiger11
quote:
Ultimately it will be struck down or Roberts will humiliate himself again.
these are absolutely the only possible outcomes
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:38 am to MileHighDraw
It’s been appealed and Aca stays in the effect for the time being. Will likely work it’s way up around summer 2020.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:45 am to bamarep
quote:
Will the GOP as per usual be caught with their pants down an not have a suitable replacement bill in place?
I hate this narrative - why does there need to be a substitute? What was so evil with the system we had the day before the ACA was passed?
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:45 am to bamarep
double post
This post was edited on 12/16/18 at 10:46 am
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:50 am to Jake88
quote:
Now that people aren't forced onto it for fear of penalty, in what way did they rule it unconstitutional?
10th Amendment?
Now that it’s no longer a tax, and isn’t interstate commerce, the Fed has no authority? 
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:54 am to MileHighDraw
This ruling will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, and I assume the USSC will refuse to hear it.
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan.
The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan.
The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:57 am to bamarep
quote:
Will the GOP as per usual be caught with their pants down an not have a suitable replacement bill in place?
You can bet the house on it. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:59 am to Muthsera
quote:
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan.
The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
Other argument - and one that is likely to carry the day - is that by reducing the penalty to $0 (not actually repealing the mandate), but leaving other parts of the law intact, they created a different statute.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 10:59 am to Muthsera
quote:
This ruling will almost certainly be overturned on appeal,
unlikely, especially in the 5th Circuit
the judge based his ruling on the majority opinion in the Sebelius case.
quote:
I assume the USSC will refuse to hear it
they will have to hear it, especially since you can expect a "quickie" ruling out of the 9th or 3rd saying the opposite.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 11:00 am to MileHighDraw
What I hope it eventually leads to is the liberals having to get a job and support themselves instead of sponging off the rest of us
Posted on 12/16/18 at 11:00 am to Muthsera
quote:
There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
True, except, if IIRC, the ACA has no severability clause regarding the mandate. Something Congress probably should have thought of before passing it. Guess they should have read it.
This post was edited on 12/16/18 at 11:01 am
Posted on 12/16/18 at 11:01 am to Muthsera
quote:
The lack of the individual mandate has no bearing on Medicaid expansion funding, allowing adults to stay on their parents plans, or regulations about which preventative measures must be covered as part of a plan. The individual mandate was just about subsidizing cost for pre-existing conditions and retaining profit for insurance companies. There was a whole lot more shite in the law that a $0 penalty has no effect on.
read up on severability clauses...and the absence of one in the ACA
Posted on 12/16/18 at 11:02 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Something Congress probably should have thought of before passing it.
this was done on purpose. the thought was that no court would take away this goody to the public on that basis such that every element would be protected from challenge.
Posted on 12/16/18 at 11:02 am to MileHighDraw
quote:
Why did it take 5+ years to determine it was unconstitutional?
It was ruled unconstitutional based on legislative changes from the 2017 tax cut bill that removed the individual mandate
When ACA was first being debated in court it was upheld as constitutional because the individual mandate was considered a tax
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News