Healthcare

[DMac]

This judge's ruling on the severability issue is a really big stretch and probably won't hold up.

But if this ruling did hold up, I wonder if it might just be the thing that would make medicare-for-all happen.

If that's the end result the judge would have a couple hundred million folks lined up to shake his hand and thank him. Don't doubt darn near every one of them would kiss his a-s-s on the courthouse steps and pay him five bucks to do it if he wanted to pick up a few bucks and make a big show of it all either.
For the amount of hours everyone is working for the health insurance industry weekly/monthly/annually, they all deserve a healthy bonus at the end of the year, kinda like the one the big shot execs get. A few hundred a week, couple of K/month for health coverage? Got a student loan? Kids?
Can't let the insurance industry run the health care business, the only thing they care about being healthy is their bank account. They're the disease that's killing a lot of people. The health care situation in this country needs to be fixed, the Ds and Rs need to stop making a pizzing contest out of it and make it right.

[old salt]

But will it hold up ? ...& will it take effect ?

Unlike 9th Circuit Judges "legislating from the bench" which had an immediate, nationwide impact on enforcement of immigration laws,

...which remain unresolved. Caravan kids are still dying in the desert.

[ggait]

Interesting note about the judge in this case.

Apparently, he is the one and only federal judge at his particular courthouse in Fort Worth. TX. So if you can find jurisdiction to file in that courthouse, there's a 100% chance that you get that exact guy as your judge. Normally, when you file at a courthouse you get a random selection from among all of the judges assigned there.

Seems like there's a track record of him getting targeted for certain kinds of righty controversial cases. I've never heard of being able to judge/forum shop to that degree of precision before.

[old salt]

Roy Bean ?

[youthathletics]

Has t heard that name in years. In my younger days I playing in a band and we were at a bar called Judge Roy Beans in peace Cross Maryland. Boy or boy.... the stories I coulf tell.

[Brooklyn]

I haven't read his opinion as of yet but wonder how he reached his conclusion since the USSC has already ruled that the ACA is legal under the government's authority to impose a tax. Is this particular judge trying to overrule the SC??

[seacoaster]

His point is, I guess, that when the 2017 Congress eliminated the penalty -- the tax -- for defying the individual mandate (but kept the toothless mandate), they eliminated the constitutional basis for sustaining the law.

More commentary:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 3214f70f69

[cradleandshoot]

I have said here many times before that this was a very poorly written law pushed through rapidly to give BHO his moment of glory. In hindsight there were some very good things about it... ie giving coverage to people that could not afford it. Then there were the bad things... ie how do you pay for it and what do you do to bring down medical costs. IMO... any plan that does not address the out of control costs of healthcare is missing the target completely. The ACA never even gave it a look. That is what happens when you come up with a half ass plan that does not look at the whole problem. A cynical person such as myself would say that that is the perfect foundation for proposing single payer. Which is what will eventually happen. I hope they do a better job on that than they did with say taking care of the medical needs of our veterans? That has been FUBAR for the longest time. None of us should be concerned. This time, the idiots that run DC will get it right. I guess if we give them a week they will have a single payer system in the can and ready to roll out. Maybe even 2 or 3 days. There really is not that much to figure out. When they eff the whole kit and caboodle up well they can just go back and fix it then. This kind of sheepdip is what makes the lawyers in DC so very happy. There is so much money to be made in the never ending stream of litigation that is soon to follow. Lawyers making laws and regulations that ultimately profit lawyers, no that is just me being way too cynical about the entire process. evil5

[foreverlax]

Has t heard that name in years. In my younger days I playing in a band and we were at a bar called Judge Roy Beans in peace Cross Maryland. Boy or boy.... the stories I coulf tell.

I know that bar...likley heard you play.

[ggait]

I haven't read his opinion as of yet but wonder how he reached his conclusion since the USSC has already ruled that the ACA is legal under the government's authority to impose a tax. Is this particular judge trying to overrule the SC??

Even legal conservatives are saying this opinion is a joke. It should be overturned, but we'll have to wait and see if it actually does. Lots of Fed Society types these days on the 5th Circuit and SCOTUS.

The reasoning is that:

1. In 2010, the Dem Congress said that the individual mandate was an essential part of the law -- the whole thing wouldn't work without the IM.
2. Then CJ Roberts upheld the IM in 2012 by saying that the IM was a tax and under the Constitution Congress has jurisdiction under the taxing power.
3. Then Congress in 2017 reduced the IM penalty to $0 (although the IM is still on the books) as part of Trump's tax break law.
4. If the penalty is zero dollars, then the IM can't be considered a tax any longer.
5. So even though the IM no longer has any economic consequences, it is unconstitutional since it isn't a tax.
6. Back in 2010, Congress said the IM was an essential part of the law. So if the IM goes down, then you have to take down the entire ACA law under the legal doctrine of "severability."
7. So by passing Trump's tax law, Congress actually repealed the entire ACA. Who knew?

Kind of reminds me of one of those since A beat B and B beat C and C beat D strings, then Rice football is better than Alabama football.

A couple of problems with this:

1. There appears to be precedent in the 5th Circuit that says that Congress has jurisdiction to legislate within the taxing POWER. Which means you don't necessarily need to have an actual revenue raising tax for it all to be legal. The judge blew that precedent off.

2. All it would take, under the judges ruling, to bring the entire ACA back from the dead, would be for Congress to pass a law saying the IM penalty is (cue Dr. Evil) "ONE DOLLAR" per person!! Really?

3. The intent of Congress on this could not be clearer. 2017 Congress intended to leave the ACA in place (including pre-existing coverage and such) while taking the IM penalty down to zero. How do we know this?

4. Since 2010, Congress attempted to repeal the ACA like 87 times. And every time the repeal vote failed. Did the judge not see the McCain thumbs down on TV?

5. In 2017, Congress voted only to change the IM penalty. But the tax law left the rest of the ACA in place. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Congress wanted to take down the rest of the ACA. Had that been the intention, it never would have passed -- since Flake, Collins, Murkowski all voted yes (McCain did not vote).

6. But somehow the pride of South Texas Law School (didn't even make the USNWR rankings fyi) concludes that we have to throw the law out based on some chatter from Congress in 2010. And all the stuff that Congress said and did in 2011-2017 (and especially what they did/said in enacting the 2017 tax law) has to be ignored.

Does that look like conservative or activist judging to you? Neutrally calling balls and strikes? Or legislating from the bench?

No conservative judge would do any of the above -- he'd just let Congress adopt the policies (smart or dumb) that it is authorized to adopt. Even better, a conservative could rule that the portion of the tax law zeroing out the IM penalties was unconstitutional. Instead, this legal genius says that you have to throw out the entire car because the ash tray is full. Sheesh!!!!!

[SCLaxAttack]

Ggait - Thanks for translating every article I’ve seen on this into something understandable. I’ve got a two part question re: your reasoning, 6, “severability” comment.

Unless specifically spelled out in its wording, it sounds to me that this reasoning is based on interpreting whether the IM was or wasn’t an essential part of a law. Was the importance of the IM written into the law? If not, is it common for a judge to decide what is or isn’t essential?

[youthathletics]

That is what I read into the judges decision as well. Essentially saying....clean it up.

[ggait]

Ggait - Thanks for translating every article I’ve seen on this into something understandable. I’ve got a two part question re: your reasoning, 6, “severability” comment.

Unless specifically spelled out in its wording, it sounds to me that this reasoning is based on interpreting whether the IM was or wasn’t an essential part of a law. Was the importance of the IM written into the law? If not, is it common for a judge to decide what is or isn’t essential?

If this case arises in 2011-2012, you certainly could have made a strong argument that Congress intended the IM to be an essential, inseverable part of the law. Obama probably thought that at the time. And the sevrability doctrine says, basically, you can't have a car any more if you remove the motor and wheels.

But this case comes up in 2018, after years of experience and tinkering with the ACA. And after years of Congress of voting and failing to take the whole thing down. And the judge is reviewing a specific Congressional action taken in 2017. So that is what you have to look at.

Severability is not a constitutional doctrine, fyi. It is just a practical rule used to make interpretations and rulings BASED ON WHAT CONGRESS' INTENT WAS. That intent might not always be easy to divine in a particular case. Congress passes a law that includes A, B, C, D and E. If it turns out E is bad, Congress may not have indicated to us if it still intended ABCD to apply without E. Because they just pass ABCDE all together. But if Congress clearly intended for ABCD to stay in the absence of E, then the judge has absolutely no business touching ABCD. Because the judge (especially a "conservative" one) isn't supposed to legislate from the bench.

But here, Congress' intent could not be clearer. Congress tried time and again to get rid of ABCDE and it never happened. Including McCain's thumbs down in July 2018. Couple months later, they vote to eliminate E, but say and do nothing about ABCD. And we know for a FACT that getting rid of ABCD would never pass (i.e. McCain's thumbs down plus Collins, Murkowski, etc.).

So the right answer is that in 2017 (probably different from what Obama might have thought in 2010) Congress clearly intended for ABCD to remain after getting rid of E. Congress is obviously allowed to change its mind over time about things.

And if you don't think that works, then the better ruling would be to say that the law getting rid of E is unconstitutional. Since Congress 100% clearly intended ABCD to stay.

TL, DR version: What the heck was this judge thinking?

[foreverlax]

From the WSJ...pretty much says it all.

Texas ObamaCare Blunder
A judge’s ruling will be overturned and could backfire on Republicans.

President Trump hailed the ruling in a tweet, but he has never understood the Affordable Care Act. His Administration has done good work revising regulations to reduce health-care costs and increase access, but the risk is that the lawsuit will cause Republicans in Congress to panic politically and strike a deal with Democrats that reinforces ObamaCare. This is what happens when conservatives fall into the liberal trap of thinking they can use the courts to achieve policy goals that need to be won in Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-obam ... 1544996418

[dislaxxic]

Are Republicans Crazy Enough to Kill Obamacare Like This?

On the law, this decision should be overturned 9-0. If you missed the New York Times op-ed Saturday by Jonathan Adler and Abbe Gluck, go read it. It’s unsparing. Adler and Gluck have both been involved in ACA litigation—Adler against, and Gluck for. You’d think given that, they couldn’t agree on something like this, but they do. They explain clearly why this decision is lawless, and they leave this hack judge’s entrails on the floor.

So yeah, it should be 9-0. But it probably won’t be. At least three justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—have rarely shown any evidence of being anything other than Republican Party operatives. Brett Kavanaugh we don’t know much about yet. Adler and Gluck note that his writings would suggest that he should reject this judge’s reasoning. But we’ve all seen that movie before, haven’t we?

Which brings us to Roberts. He’s shown awareness in the past (indeed in the first Obamacare case) about the court’s standing and the real-world ramifications of its decisions. Every once in a great while, he even seems to acknowledge that there is such a thing as the general welfare, which conservatives of course despise.

..

[CU77]

I have said here many times before that this was a very poorly written law pushed through rapidly to give BHO his moment of glory.

And it doesn't get any less false with repetition.

In hindsight there were some very good things about it... ie giving coverage to people that could not afford it. Then there were the bad things... ie how do you pay for it and what do you do to bring down medical costs. IMO... any plan that does not address the out of control costs of healthcare is missing the target completely. The ACA never even gave it a look.

Please. It's the Rs who absolutely detest gubmint reg'lation of health care or anything else. The ACA was originally a Republican plan, adopted by Obama and the Ds as an attempt at compromise. The Ds wanted single-payer all along. And that's what it will take to control costs. The free market doesn't care if you die because you can't pay them.

[CU77]

Are Republicans Crazy Enough to Kill Obamacare Like This?

I sure hope so! We need Trump and the Rs to keep demonstrating just how much they care about the average American voter.

Just another step towards the Permanent Democrat Majority, coming soon to Congressional districts everywhere! Preview showings have already sold out in Orange County!

[cradleandshoot]

I have said here many times before that this was a very poorly written law pushed through rapidly to give BHO his moment of glory.

And it doesn't get any less false with repetition.

In hindsight there were some very good things about it... ie giving coverage to people that could not afford it. Then there were the bad things... ie how do you pay for it and what do you do to bring down medical costs. IMO... any plan that does not address the out of control costs of healthcare is missing the target completely. The ACA never even gave it a look.

Please. It's the Rs who absolutely detest gubmint reg'lation of health care or anything else. The ACA was originally a Republican plan, adopted by Obama and the Ds as an attempt at compromise. The Ds wanted single-payer all along. And that's what it will take to control costs. The free market doesn't care if you die because you can't pay them.

First off Buffalo Chips with you dragging out that tired old line that the ACA was a Republican idea. That is Buffalo chips from the get go that no freaking Democrat would ever agree with any republican plan for health care. That is nothing more than a pathetic, lame ass excuse the Democrats keep on dragging out to blame their foul up on good old Mittens.


2nd point if you had been paying attention to my point of view way back to the old LP forum you would be much more well informed. I don't want to put words in his mouth because he no longer posts here, but Walrus and I had this exact same discussion. The point that Walrus made was it did not matter how poorly written the ACA was. Grab your knickers and hold on tight CU... the ACA was always meant to be and designed to be the stepping stone to... guess what... socialized medicine. The simple fact it was a cluster fudge regulation that created as many problems as it tried to solve laid the groundwork for the next step. What would that be? Well we tried our best and the ACA just isn't working. The only option we have left is single payer.


3rd point and this is what I had to say about the ACA from day one. It did NOTHING to reduce health care costs in America. The only good thing about the ACA is that it provided health care to folks that could not afford it. If you had any reading comprehension I have said this about the ACA many times here and on the old LP. That is the reason that even before President Obamas signature was dry on the document it already needed to be fixed. Well the dirty little secret is it didn't need to be "fixed" it needed a reason to morph into single payer. After all... that was always what the "fix" was intended to be was it not? Walrus if you are still out there reading from afar, I believe that is what you told me the goal was. If I am wrong I hope you will step forward and tell me I didn't understand what you were saying.

[CU77]

Please tell me how you plan to control costs without socialization.

[foreverlax]

I have said here many times before that this was a very poorly written law pushed through rapidly to give BHO his moment of glory.

And it doesn't get any less false with repetition.

In hindsight there were some very good things about it... ie giving coverage to people that could not afford it. Then there were the bad things... ie how do you pay for it and what do you do to bring down medical costs. IMO... any plan that does not address the out of control costs of healthcare is missing the target completely. The ACA never even gave it a look.

Please. It's the Rs who absolutely detest gubmint reg'lation of health care or anything else. The ACA was originally a Republican plan, adopted by Obama and the Ds as an attempt at compromise. The Ds wanted single-payer all along. And that's what it will take to control costs. The free market doesn't care if you die because you can't pay them.

First off Buffalo Chips with you dragging out that tired old line that the ACA was a Republican idea. That is Buffalo chips from the get go that no freaking Democrat would ever agree with any republican plan for health care. That is nothing more than a pathetic, lame ass excuse the Democrats keep on dragging out to blame their foul up on good old Mittens. Well, not accurate. The Heritage Foundation, Newt, and Mitt were ground zero for ACA in response to HillaryCare.


2nd point if you had been paying attention to my point of view way back to the old LP forum you would be much more well informed. I don't want to put words in his mouth because he no longer posts here, but Walrus and I had this exact same discussion. The point that Walrus made was it did not matter how poorly written the ACA was. Grab your knickers and hold on tight CU... the ACA was always meant to be and designed to be the stepping stone to... guess what... socialized medicine. The simple fact it was a cluster fudge regulation that created as many problems as it tried to solve laid the groundwork for the next step. What would that be? Well we tried our best and the ACA just isn't working. The only option we have left is single payer. Single Payer, Socialized Medicine, Medicare and Medicaid are all synonymous.

3rd point and this is what I had to say about the ACA from day one. It did NOTHING to reduce health care costs in America. Sorry, false. Had it been implemented as designed, the laws of large numbers, along with some constant fixes, it would have made it better then what we have now. The only good thing about the ACA is that it provided health care to folks that could not afford it. True, it is a good thing to cover everyone, but the math was blown up so deductibles and monthly's blew up as well...You forget about PreExistingConditions.

If you had any reading comprehension I have said this about the ACA many times here and on the old LP. That is the reason that even before President Obamas signature was dry on the document it already needed to be fixed. Well the dirty little secret is it didn't need to be "fixed" it needed a reason to morph into single payer. There has to be an answer to why I can't get as good a policy as the next guy, because of where I work. After all... that was always what the "fix" was intended to be was it not? Walrus if you are still out there reading from afar, I believe that is what you told me the goal was. If I am wrong I hope you will step forward and tell me I didn't understand what you were saying.

I said it back on LP, when Walrus was around - health care is a right and has to be non-profit.