Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional

While I personally think this is a good thing, especially if the mandated purchase or pay a fine portion were still in place (though if I'm correct, it's not), how can a Texas Court rule on something SCOTUS already settled? Cornfused....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-by-texas-judge

 

The main rationale has been out there ever since they legislated out the individual mandate.

Most people saw this coming.

 

Of course it is unconstitutional.

(1) The law was written that it would pay for itself. It clearly does not.
(2) The law was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a tax. All tax law must start in the U.S. House of Representatives according to the U.S. Constitution. Obamacare started in the U.S. Senate. Don't believe me check Wikipedia or any other source on the law.

This will be appealed. Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't screw around with our Constitution again. The last Obamcare ruling by Roberts was obscene, but we Conservatives did not lose our minds. Let's see what Leftists do.

 

Yeah, but my question is how can a (much) lower Court even take up an issue that's been heard and decided by the Supremes? (Note: I'm not a lawyer, but understand more about the law than your average bear, but don't get this one.)

 

Happens all the time.

 

Pretty much, but liberals love this Obamanation, not so much the left.

 

Because it's not about the same thing. The first case was about the individual mandate, which the supreme court ridiculously ruled was constitutional because it was a tax. However the ruling made it clear the entirety of Obamacares constitutionality rested on the individual mandate. Well the individual mandate was recently repealed, so the lawsuit was saying that now Obamacare is definitely unconstitutional. The judge agreed.

 

It figures that a govt mandate named for obama would be unconstitutional.

 

The law was changed to eliminate the tax penalty. The claim is that this change eliminates the SCOTUS rationale for declaring it Constitutional.

 

As we saw in the 2018 Elections ............. Most Americans want The ACA to continue

 

Exactly.

Considering the individual mandate as a "tax" was the rationale that upheld it in SCOTUS.

Thus, w/o the individual mandate, the rationale (for upholding it) was no longer present.

Of course, it will be appealed and appealed, etc.

 

Looks like federal judges run the show these days.....oh well.

 

There’s never a Hawaiian judge around when you need one. The upside for liberals is they never run out of ideas on how to tax us, perhaps a huge carbon tax will fill the void.

 

Or a tax on texts.

 

If your opinion was true, you would of had that blue wave. Are you a fan of Government dictating you MUST purchase a non Government product at pain of a "tax" penalty?

 

OK, that actually makes sense.

 

I personally agree with Justice Roberts that the fine in the Individual Mandate works as a tax, and I myself paid that fine/tax myself last year. It was just added to my April 15th bill. Also, the individual mandate has already been repealed by congress a few months ago, while the rest of the law has been kept in tact, so I don't see how striking down the mandate hurts the law any more than currently.

Personally, I am not a big fan of Obamacare, and while it is somewhat better than before, it didn't come close to fixing our healthcare system at all. If Obamacare is struck down, this will create such a political crisis with millions becoming uninsured and the loss of pre-existing conditions protections. I don't even know if congress can get a compromise together. I think this crisis will result in a Medicare for All solution to emerge in the early 2020s.

 

Want is not a constitutional criteria

 

So now Trump owns healthcare and the shutdown. Oh, and a down market for the year. First time in a while that happened.

 

Well, at least that would explain it sensibly.

 

I'm lucky, my wife works for a hospital, so we have "hospital employee" insurance. Probably better than anyone who doesn't have that benefit can buy at any price, save maybe Congresscritters. Of course, we pay for that at least in part by her having a lower salary than an equivalent job in the private sector would pay, but notwithstanding that, my friends who got stuck with ACA, with whom I had a conversation about it, unanimously hated it. Costs doubled, tripled, or more. Deductibles went up. This whole thing about pre-existing conditions I'm not sure I get, as I changed providers many times over my years, and I was never so much as even asked, much less required to submit to a physical or other such thing. Perhaps someone can explain that to me using small words.

 

The question before this court was different. It's a new consideration and not covered in the original SCOTUS ruling.

 

They get that information from your application and your doctors records.

 

The Law of Unintended Consequences is about to smack the GOP again!

There are millions of hardworking Americans on BOTH sides of the political spectrum who are glad to have Obamacare. They made their voices heard at townhalls across the nation to such an extent that Republicans stopped holding them.

The Dems now have the perfect opportunity to pass Medicare for All with a single minor alteration doing away with the age restriction.

The GOP Senate is facing a serious 2020 challenge so it would not surprise me in the least if there enough on the right to support Medicare for All. That would make McConnell the Grinch if he prevents the bill from coming to the floor and the BLOTUS the VILLAIN if he vetoes it.

That is where this is headed and anyone on the right jumping for joy regarding this decision are being premature in their jubilation.

 

Releasing medical records requires consent. Not that I had any medical records to speak of before the last few years.