Law Federal judge in Texas strikes down ObamaCare

[ocean size]

It's now on the current Congress and our President to fix health care if they are all not too busy being assholes.

Serious question, how do you see something being palatable to the GOP and also 'fixing healthcare'?

Pre existing conditions like cancer should be covered. ...................

We should not be forced to buy medical insurance.

How do you expect to force mandatory pre-existing condition coverage without ensuring the risk pool contains plenty of healthy people without causing premiums to skyrocket?

Also out of curiosity, do you take issue with being forced to 'buy Medicare'?

 

[panamaican]

I addressed that already. They are unconstitutional, but they can't muster enough public outrage since they are vices, in the same way that certain population groups get shafted by the government because they can't get enough voters on their behalf.

Now, why don't you actually respond to the very clear argument I've said several times in this thread? Arbitrary, uneven and punitive "taxation" allows a government to completely sidestep the entire system of lawmaking, criminal justice, and even constitutional rights, by simply taxing any behavior they don't like at a trillion dollars and putting the desired group in jail for "tax avoidance?"

Most of what you're saying has nothing to do with this ruling.

A brief read of the order says that the problem is not the taxing power of Congress. It's that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the Individual Mandate Tax. And that since the IM Tax itself is essential to the ACA, the ACA cannot stand without it. Basically, since one integral part of the ACA no longer exists, the entire ACA cannot exist. Although it is interesting that the mandate was not actually eliminated, it was instead set to $0.

None of this stuff about taxing power is relevant to this ruling.

 

[Prutfis]

These conservatives reeeeeeally want to go back to the Hilary Clinton HMO racket. Must be really tough having to choose between Obama's signature policy and Hilary's. If only they had something better to provide that wasn't absurd and wouldn't lead to deaths and personal bankruptcies nationwide.

Yeah the GOP have shown some historical incompetence in regards to healthcare. Crying and obstructing for years only to have 0 plan when they control everything. Trump was certainly full of shit (on this as well)

 

[Hognoxious]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/421511-federal-judge-in-texas-strikes-down-obamacare

A federal judge in Texas on Friday struck down the Affordable Care Act, throwing a new round of uncertainty into the fate of the law just one day before the deadline to sign up for coverage for next year.

The judge ruled that the law's individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that because the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, the rest of the law is also invalid.

The ruling is certain to be appealed, and legal experts in both parties have said they ultimately expect the challenge to the health law will not succeed.

==================================================

It should have never been allowed to stand in the first place. ALL laws that include a tax MUST start in the U.S. House of Representatives according to the U.S. Constitution.

Pro Tip: The Obamacare law started in the U.S. Senate. The Supreme Court ruled it was a tax. How they let it stand is mind boggling.

It's now on the current Congress and our President to fix health care if they are all not too busy being assholes.

What from Obama's presidency still remains? Except for the collapse of our values.

 

[FIMN]

What from Obama's presidency still remains? Except for the collapse of our values.

The memory of a literate, knowledgable, respectful president. Not sure what values Trump personifies in your view, but if you identify with them my money is on you being a cunt.

 

[Hognoxious]

my money is on you being a cunt.

Your liberal tolerance is such a beacon of hope.

 

[FIMN]

Your liberal tolerance is such a beacon of hope.

This doesn't really make any sense. It's not intolerant to assume those people who share the perceived values of known conmen and liars will in all likelihood be cunts. It's just common sense?

 

[Quipling]

What if the Judge is setting national injunctions from being slapped down and this is his way of stopping the San Fran judges?

Come again?

 

[bobgeese]

Yeah the GOP have shown some historical incompetence in regards to healthcare. Crying and obstructing for years only to have 0 plan when they control everything. Trump was certainly full of shit (on this as well)

Pretty much.


Republicans didn’t just lose this battle, they showed they don’t even know how to fight it.

 

[bobgeese]

What from Obama's presidency still remains? Except for the collapse of our values.

Gay marriage, Osama, Syria

 

[EGarrett]

Most of what you're saying has nothing to do with this ruling.

A brief read of the order says that the problem is not the taxing power of Congress. It's that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the Individual Mandate Tax. And that since the IM Tax itself is essential to the ACA, the ACA cannot stand without it. Basically, since one integral part of the ACA no longer exists, the entire ACA cannot exist. Although it is interesting that the mandate was not actually eliminated, it was instead set to $0.

None of this stuff about taxing power is relevant to this ruling.

Good, because I wasn't talking about this ruling. I was making a general point, which you should have picked up on since I ended up my first post by saying it was "another of many problems in this ethical disaster." Someone else then asked for an example argument for Obamacare being unconstitutional, and this whole issue specifically was discussed in the 2012 case.

 

[Lord Coke]

Come again?

Okay I know this is far fetched but I was thinking about this. What if the judge is trying to set up a SCUTUS case regarding national injunctions. Wouldn't this be the perfect case to say district court judges have limits to the scope of an injunction they can issue? That would limit the ability of the Bay Area judges to issue national injunctions.

 

[Quipling]

Okay I know this is far fetched but I was thinking about this. What if the judge is trying to set up a SCUTUS case regarding national injunctions. Wouldn't this be the perfect case to say district court judges have limits to the scope of an injunction they can issue? That would limit the ability of the Bay Area judges to issue national injunctions.

Yeah I don't think he's playing that kind of 4d chess. A stay pending appeal is the remedy here anyways, and even if he were playing that chess it's be an amazingly bad move.

Think about it. On, the legal side are some serious article III issues with that kind of position. You'd effectively remove the ability of the federal court system to review any nation-wide issue in a timely fashion. On the realistic side, judges don't hamstring judges across the board to block bad actors. They just overrule those bad actors.

 

[Lord Coke]

Yeah I don't think he's playing that kind of 4d chess. A stay pending appeal is the remedy here anyways, and even if he were playing that chess it's be an amazingly bad move.

Think about it. On, the legal side are some serious article III issues with that kind of position. You'd effectively remove the ability of the federal court system to review any nation-wide issue in a timely fashion. On the realistic side, judges don't hamstring judges across the board to block bad actors. They just overrule those bad actors.

I hear you but it used to be facial challenges of any nature were high disfavored and as applied challenges were what court's did.
On a somewhat related note, I would like the Supreme Court to revisit Salerno at some point. I can not wrap my head around the no set of facts standard.
It is vague to say the least since there is always a set of facts where in a law is constitutional so it can't literally mean that.

 

[panamaican]

Good, because I wasn't talking about this ruling. I was making a general point, which you should have picked up on since I ended up my first post by saying it was "another of many problems in this ethical disaster." Someone else then asked for an example argument for Obamacare being unconstitutional, and this whole issue specifically was discussed in the 2012 case.

Not exactly. You started a response to Fawlty about how the Mandate Penalty violated the Constitution. His post wasn't in response to your post on the 1st page, it was to BKKFan. No one responded to your first post until after you jumped into the constitutionality and Article 3.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

100 years from now the GOP will still be trying to repeal Obamacare.

 

[andnowweknow]

What from Obama's presidency still remains? Except for the collapse of our values.

the collapse of our values...in the form of Donald Trump, the bringer of light. Guy is a festering swamp creature, that you voted for.

 

[EGarrett]

Not exactly. You started a response to Fawlty about how the Mandate Penalty violated the Constitution. His post wasn't in response to your post on the 1st page, it was to BKKFan. No one responded to your first post until after you jumped into the constitutionality and Article 3.

No. Fawlty said that the article doesn't make a case for it being unconstitutional, and asked if there is a case for it being unconstitutional. So I referred him to my earlier comment from a separate thread which was unmerged at the time.

If you want to lash out at Anti-Obama people, I suggest you try to make actual points, like for starters, knowing which Article I was even talking about (it wasn't "Article 3"). This type of nonsense, much like Fawlty's behavior, isn't going to work.