The First 100 days

It is the equivalent of the 9th circuit ruling from what i've read. Even conservatives agree (see Reason).

This was a group of conservative state AG's that picked a court with only 1 active judge who had a known conservative bent. This judge used the logic of the DISSENT in the Supreme Court case to make his decision.

This puts the many rants of those who voice didain for "activist judges" in context. What they really disdain is "progressive activist judges".

I agree with @Monahorns that the biggest problem with our healthcare system is its tie to our employer. The ACA was not perfect but it was a viable alternative to employer centered healthcare.

 

With the ACA his employer is required to treat his son as a dependent until he exceeds the age of 26. This was a change for most insurances where they didn't allow you to carry them on your own plan past 22. IF the ACA is invalidated then the risk is rules like this will also be invalid. Pre-Existing conditions is the other major rule that would be invalidated.

 

bystander, it is more than theory but it doesn't include the growing pains that people would go through. This is actually why we never have any real reform other than "more government". Not sure what the answer is to help your family but I know the problem has been government intervention historically. That means it is unreasonable to depend on more government intervention to get a better system.

 

He really followed the logic of Chief Justice Roberts. Keep in mind that the majority and dissent bounced around. On interstate commerce, the conservatives constituted the majority. On the tax issue, the liberals constituted the majority.

What the judge essentially did was rule that since the alleged tax penalty was zeroed out, it wouldn't pass muster as a tax under Roberts's logic. Since that was the only thing that saved the law, the judge tossed it out. Honestly, his logic does make sense.

Is it an "activist" opinion? That depends on what one means by "activist." If it means striking down a big law, then it's definitely activist. If it means departing wildly from precedent, then I think the argument is harder to make. It's going to be hard for Roberts to vote to reverse the judge's decision and stay consistent with his previous ruling.

Honestly, the severability issue is where I think the judge stretched the most.

 

I'm saying if ACA is repealed then in the absence of new legislation there's a chance my son would be dropped from my coverage right away.

 

I only used the term theory to mean it's on the drawing board and from where I sit, far from being actually passed into law or whatever it would take.

 

@Mr. Deez I remember Roberts logic (I didn't read the entire opinion so I realize I may be sticking my neck out on this) because it struck me in how Obama forcefully argued the individual mandate was not a tax and it seemed ironic that the Conservative judge bailed Obama out by ruling it a tax thus deeming it Constitutional. But do you believe that all the provisions of a bill are unconstitutional if there is not a tax? In other words, according to the Constitution, must every bill passed by Congress levy a tax (a provision for funding)?

 

My personal opinion is this; government mandates such as the ACA can be argued against due to the arbitrary nature of what benefits my family; i.e. my employer must cover my children until they are 26 years old.

Here is some language from the US Dept of Labor website:

"Q1:How does the Affordable Care Act help young adults?
Before the Affordable Care Act, many health plans and issuers could remove adult children from their parents' coverage because of their age, whether or not they were a student or where they lived. The Affordable Care Act requires plans and issuers that offer dependent child coverage to make the coverage available until the adult child reaches the age of 26. Many parents and their children who worried about losing health coverage after they graduated from college no longer have to worry."

SO, worry drives this portion of the bill. Worry for our children's well-being. Is worry Constitutional? I suppose they could have made the age 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 etc. I don't know why they settled on 26. I get that it appears to be a bit old. It forces our employers to incur some sort of expense. But I don't think the law governs premiums. I work for a Fortune 500 company and I believe they subsidize approximately 80% of the cost of our premiums. It's a great plan. And there is a quid pro quo. I work very hard. I'm the Manager of Financial Planning for a large division and a "go-to" experienced employee who mentors many young employees and supports several other departments across the board. They have my total commitment. So my total compensation package is fair in my opinion when you consider my commitment. I have no doubt they would try to drop the age of dependent coverage in the absence of the ACA but in a world of employee acquisition and retention, it's all part of the package for talent.

In the end, I don't know if it hurts America to force our business community to cover these dependents. But it sure helps the families who are willing to pay the price of the job and the premium they levy. Is that Constitutional? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe it should be a states rights issue.

But my main concern is the outright repeal due to this ruling and a lurch into the wilderness under a government that can't agree on anything.

Here are some interesting comments from the internets:

Trump hails judge's ruling against Obamacare as 'great'

"Timothy Jost, a health law expert and emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Virginia, said it was “silly” and “irresponsible” for O’Connor to find that the individual mandate could not be separated from the rest of the ACA. He said judges who find that portions of laws are invalid are required “to do as little damage as possible” to the rest of the law, and O’Connor had ignored that principle.

Jost noted that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear any appeal in the case, is considered the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. But, “O’Connor is so far off the reservation here that virtually any (appeals) panel will reverse him,” Jost said.

Jost noted that in the 2012 case in which the Supreme Court upheld the ACA, a lower appeals court had found the individual mandate unlawful, but ruled it could be severed from the rest of the law. That ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “is at least as persuasive and probably more persuasive than a decision by a single judge in Wichita Falls, Texas,” Jost said.

He said the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative wing has been skeptical in the past of striking down entire laws because of a single problematic provision, and at least a bare majority of five justices would likely agree that O’Connor was wrong."

 

Boy, do I respect that assessment.

 

Obama was a flagrant lying sack of **** on this, though our political media of partisan hacks mostly gave him a pass on it. He told the American people that it was not a tax and then sent his lawyers into court to argue the exact opposite. Conservatives freaked out that Roberts bought his argument in court, but the bottom line is that it was essentially true. It wasn't a fine. It was treated in pretty much every respect as a tax. So Obama told the truth in court. He just lied to the public.

You asked about whether the rest of the Act has to fall if the tax argument fails. I don't think it has to. Like I said above, this is where the judge stretched the most the so-called "severability" issue. If he's going to get overturned on something, this is likely to be it. That means the Medicaid expansion and the regulations (the popular and the unpopular) will probably ultimately remain in place.

What I do find comical is how many political commentators who have previously been righteously horrified with the Right criticizing the judiciary taking a dump on this judge and criticizing the AGs for "weoponizing" the court as if the Left hasn't been weoponizing the courts to drive their policy agenda for 70 years. These are the same people who were celebrating a judge ruling that the President couldn't undo the DACA executive order, which might have been the most pulled out of one's *** after eating a bowl of bad chili ruling I've ever heard of. I do think the judge got the severability issue wrong, but his position was a hell of a lot more defensible than that judicial piece of cheap toilet paper was and countless other garbage rulings from other federal courts.

 

Is severability a legal "tradition" or does someone have to file suit against the remaining portion of the law that was not under the microscope? In other words, if a bill has ten points and one of those points is attacked (not all, but just one) and the judge rules; then is the judge bound to consider it's effect on the entire bill or can he/she say, "If you wanted a ruling on everything else you should have asked."

Also, is funding vital on every bill to make it Constitutional? What about the "unfunded mandates." Was the objection that the cost was passed onto those required to implement the law or that it was an unconstitutional bill because Congress did not levy a tax? Or both?

 

Interesting analysis. I suppose at this point the individual mandate is really just a decree since there is no penalty associated with it. Will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS handles this. Without the tax penalty, the ACA will enter a death spiral eventually. Healthy folks will go uninsured since there is no reason not to. If you get sick then get health insurance in the next enrollment period since pre-existing conditions are covered. I didn't like Obamacare, but anyone who argues for covering preexisting conditions without a mandate / penalty is a moron.

 

SH?
" Pre-Existing conditions is the other major rule that would be invalidated.
Trump etc has said over and over that preexisting conditions must be covered in any new plan.

 

Assuming this gets to the supremes, do you think Roberts will use this as a do over?

 

Trump has said a lot of things that turned out to be lies. He's now celebrating the temporary ruling against the only legislation that protects those with pre-existing conditions.

 

It probably doesn't matter to you but is there a possibility that Trump actually is celebrating the fact that Congress may be forced to act? I am not convinced that Trump actually prefers the insurance wasteland (no portability; employment based) I've read that the appeals on this will push it into 2020 so nothing will change right away. Also, I've read several articles that believe this ruling won't stand anyway.

 

Severability is the analysis a court does to determine what parts of a law must fall if a part of it is declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated. This article has a fairly good but brief discussion of it and why the judge went too far in this case.

To answer your question, generally the parties will bring severability into their pleadings and arguments, but the judge could do it sua sponte (on his own initiative). Sorry, couldn't resist the urge to toss some Latin in when given the opportunity.

Funding isn't essential for something to be constitutional. The reason the issue came up here is that the law in question had only survived because it was framed as a tax. (To paraphrase, the federal government can't require you to buy health insurance, but it can tax you harder for not buying it.) Part of that analysis is that a tax must raise revenue. At this point, it no longer does. Therefore, it's no longer a tax and no longer constitutional.

 

I wouldn't think of it as a do over. The district judge followed Roberts's analysis. I think he'll get affirmed on that. I think Roberts will vote to reverse him on the severability issue and allow the rest of the Act (including the preexisting conditions rule, etc.) to stand.

 

I don't think Trump wants an be insurance wasteland or uncertainty going into 2020. However, I don't think this forces anyone to act. Both sides will say they want to save the popular parts of the bill. However, they'll also want to add a bunch of crap to what they'll frame as a "must-pass" bill. If the other side doesn't go along, then they'll try to play the blame game going into 2020.

For example, I could see the GOP trying to attach Planned Parenthood or medical liability junk to it. I could see the Democrats trying to somehow revive the mandate, impose a tax increase, or perhaps even statutory protection for Robert Mueller.

 

It's a political dumpster fire. Even with the tax penalty, plenty of people were willing to go without insurance, because the penalty wasn't anywhere near as big of a financial hit as spending a fortune on health insurance. That was never going to save the industry.

Ultimately we're going to end up with a single payer system or something similar. We never really sold the public on having a free market system, and most wouldn't go along with one anyway. So we've half-assed a government system that leaves a lot of room for making money in a superficially free market distorted by government and third party payers, and we're reaping the consequences of that. Big government plans like single payer have been shot down by knee jerk hostility to "socialized medicine," but that hostility is getting weaker and weaker.

 

SH
Do some research. All the bills the Republicans floated to replace obamacare in 2017 had protections to cover preexisting conditions.

Please post a list of Trump's lies.

 

What isn’t these days?

 

That is certainly possible and plausible. Why won't he say that? Because his base doesn't do nuance.

I've read the same that this ruling will likely lose on appeal. In this case, Trump is simply trying to build up some brownie points with his base.

 

What's frustrating to me is that nobody on the Right has painted a clear vision or even a sketch of how they think a replacement bill should be crafted. Maybe it's out there and I've not done my homework. I'd be much obliged if anyone has a link to a Republican proposal that has some detail.

 

In fact, the Republicans (Trump included) specifically rejected a Repeal and Replace plan. It's a leap of faith. Spending priorities have been everywhere but social programs and now the budget deficit is so big that the argument can/should be only where to cut. This is why I don't believe the "we'll keep the Pre-existing conditions". It was only doable because of the individual mandate to offset the costs. In a very business friendly administration do you have hope that Trump would force the Insurance industry to take in the shorts? Meanwhile, the marketing spin continues "GREAT healthcare" etc.

 

North Dakota set its fourth straight record for Monthly Oil Production at 1.39M bpd in Oct.

The Bakken Boom

 

by
Here is a WaPo article on legislation written by the Republicans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...-on-gop-plans-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare

The legislation would preserve two of the most popular features of the 2010 health-care law, letting young adults stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26 and forbidding insurers to deny coverage or charge more to people with preexisting medical problems.

 

MAHA

 

But at least for a brief period of time, he preferred Stormy Daniels.

 

The power of woman... My Dad, RIP was from Cuba as I've said many times. He was a player. Ask his wives, including my Mom. One time he gave me some advice after I asked him what I should do about a young lady (this was back in the 80's) who I didn't see myself committing to. He said, "Son, if a woman wants to sleep with you and you turn her down, it's an insult." Neil Young's Cowgirl in the Sand immediately came to mind ("To be a woman and to be turned down"). I laughed and said I'd probably not go with that advice. But man, he meant it. Old school Cuban machismo. That's what I was raised on.

As for Trump F'ing around, I'm not fazed. I don't like lying. I don't like paying women to keep their mouth shut. My old boss and mentor, is a big time Liberal. Seattle would like him. But he was also a world class philanderer. He had the money and the women knew it. He had a 71' Striker Yacht and traveled all over. He also looked like Jim Baker. In other words, he was no Brad Pitt. But the women were constantly around and at the office we'd all just shake our heads as some new woman would be around acting like my boss was her boyfriend. Well, he was married and they never knew until later. It was a helluva deal. I would ask him, "When are you going to break the news?" He would just laugh and say, "It will work itself out."

Men are easy. Men are dogs. Right? So our President is too. Did he rape anyone? Did Clinton? What is the standard?