Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Supreme Court will consider Obamacare's constitutionality — and the outcome could bring 'total chaos'
Yahoo News ^ | March 2, 2020 | Adriana Belmonte

Posted on 03/03/2020 7:51:23 AM PST by John W

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal case on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that could potentially invalidate the entire law.

On Dec. 15, 2018, a Texas judge ruled that Obamacare’s individual mandate was unconstitutional. Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with the plaintiffs who argued that the lack of a penalty invalidated the “individual mandate” provision of the law, and if that part of the law was now invalid, then the whole law was.

Democratic states and the House of Representatives appealed the decision, and the case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court in a case titled California v. Texas. If the conservative-majority justices find the individual mandate unconstitutional in the June 2021 ruling, that could mean all of the ACA is unconstitutional.

“There could be essentially total chaos,” Cynthia Cox, director for the Program on the Affordable Care Act at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Yahoo Finance. “There’s no replacement plan that is ready to go and so essentially what would happen next is possibly over a short period of time, or possibly immediately, we would start seeing the ACA being unwound. And the immediate effect would be that literally tens of millions of people could lose coverage and also even more people could have other changes to their coverage.”

“What [would] happen is we’re going to go back to a marketplace that we had before the ACA,” Gerald Kominski, a professor in health policy and management at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, told Yahoo Finance. “Roll back the clock 11 years. First of all, there are no longer subsidies for people to buy health insurance in exchanges. Exchanges go away.”

(Excerpt) Read more at currently.att.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; 5thcircuit; aca; affordablecareact; fifthcircuit; johnroberts; judiciary; ndtexas; obamacare; politicaljudiciary; reedoconnor; scotus; supremecourt; supremes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: John W

“the outcome could bring ‘total chaos’”

Or it could bring lower healthcare costs and a better healthcare system after a year or so of people readjusting to new incentives and cost structures.


41 posted on 03/03/2020 8:33:12 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange

I know and I am being forced to sign up for Medicare that I don’t want when I turn 65.


42 posted on 03/03/2020 8:34:06 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John W
After RGB takes a dirt nap, I'd rather the Supreme Court re-consider Obama’s constitutionality...
43 posted on 03/03/2020 8:36:33 AM PST by farming pharmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonemaker

My worry, too. Obie’s out of office but still capable of damaging, embarrassing leaks about the Chief Judge....and his adoption hijinks.


44 posted on 03/03/2020 8:36:53 AM PST by chiller (As Davey Crockett once said: Be sure you're right. Then go ahead. I'm goin' ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg

“So Roberts would have to rule against himself? Doubt it.”

He would not. The new lawsuit is based on the fact that Roberts held the ACA constitutional because it contained a mandate with a financial penalty. Roberts ruled the penalty was a tax and that under Congress taxing power, it was constitutional. Silly ruling.

But after his ruling, the financial penalty was eliminated. No penalty=no tax=unconstitutional. So he could hold the law unconstitutional with logic that is completely consistent with his previous ruling.

It may be that Roberts twists himself into another pretzel to hold the law constitutional. But he already cut off the rationale that it is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. So in that sense, he could rule against himself on the Commerce Clause dicta in NFIB v. Sibelius, were he to hold that the Commerce Clause validates the ACA.

Roberts will almost certainly be the deciding vote.


45 posted on 03/03/2020 8:38:08 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John W

“First of all, there are no longer subsidies for people to buy health insurance in exchanges. Exchanges go away.”

Sounds good for starters.


46 posted on 03/03/2020 8:38:09 AM PST by Carriage Hill (A society grows great when old men plant trees, in whose shade they know they will never sit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

And give DL to illegals.


47 posted on 03/03/2020 8:39:16 AM PST by Leep (Everyday is Trump Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John W

I have ZERO faith in Roberts.. he invented out of whole cloth the justification to allow Obamacare, that not even Obama’s lawyers were arguing... He will help the liberals on the court invent some new reason to keep it....

We need at least 1 and preferably 2 more Constructionalists on the court.


48 posted on 03/03/2020 8:40:11 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
He will help the liberals on the court invent some new reason to keep it....

Rule of Law
or
Rule of Men

These are the only two types of government in the history of mankind: Republic or Oligarchy (which has many names).

Lets see if we have Rule of Law.

49 posted on 03/03/2020 8:44:00 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (If White Privilege is real, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Roberts will almost certainly be the deciding vote.

Much depends on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

50 posted on 03/03/2020 8:44:49 AM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange
"With Tricare, Medicare and Medicaid, government has been involved in health care since way before Obamacare."

True, but individuals nor employers were forced to buy insurance only approved by Obamacare. "You want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Until so many retired. The mandate fine (Robert's tax) was the biggest obscenity of that take over of 1/6th of our economy.

Again, this was the most egregious Fedgov intervention in the free marketplace I can remember. How the USSC justified an individual or company is forced to buy a government sanctioned product just dumbfounds me.

It always come back to that ambiguous "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution Preamble that the dem/socs use to buy "gimmedat" votes. If only the Founding Fathers could have seen how that clause would be corrupted.

Question: Not being a Constitutional lawyer, has there ever been a ruling that the Preamble to the Constitution is law?

51 posted on 03/03/2020 8:47:23 AM PST by A Navy Vet (I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Also LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John W

Roberts and the other democrats who supported obamacare should be recused from this case. They helped destroy millions of jobs and wipe out savings etc.


52 posted on 03/03/2020 8:50:08 AM PST by minnesota_bound (homeless guy. He just has more money....He the master will plant more cotton for the democrat party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
You may have a point about the merits of this case.

However, I believe Roberts has been compromised or why else would he read a document that mandates a FINE and turn it into a TAX? I always found it curious that the IRS was never given the authority to enforce those who didn't pay the fine/tax. IIRC, it was written in the bill.

More importantly, why would he agree that a citizen or company MUST buy a product approved by the Fedgov?

53 posted on 03/03/2020 9:13:02 AM PST by A Navy Vet (I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Also LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: John W

Roberts will rescue it again.


54 posted on 03/03/2020 9:14:49 AM PST by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
“Roll back the clock 11 years. First of all, there are no longer subsidies for people to buy health insurance in exchanges. Exchanges go away.”

OK. I guess your people in DC should've executed with a tad more analytical rigor behind their policy. Instead they half-assed everything.

55 posted on 03/03/2020 9:18:10 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. - Dwight Eisenhower, 1957)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
Side note:

You can see the incorrect use of certain words spread amongst liberals like a virus.

"... And the immediate effect would be that literally tens of millions ..."

The use of 'literally' where it doesn't belong is the latest mutation of the virus, which also includes 'kind of' ... 'sort of' ... 'just really' ... 'this' ... 'this notion that somehow' ... and many others. (Along with voice intonations, especially lately the raising of the sing song voice at the ends of sentences as if to say 'accept me please, don't challenge me, I submit my statement not as declaration but for the consideration of the group, I'm not REALLY saying it in a hard way. Also hence the use of 'kind of' and 'sort of' to soften-weasel-word practically every single thing they say.)

I thought 'literally' had been killed off as it's made a number of attempts at being a fake-intelligent filler word, but alas, it's making another comeback.

The fun thing about these liberal filler words is that:

  1. Lefties are unconscious that they use them
  2. Lefties are unconscious of their unconscious nature as followers (followers follow speech patterns more than anything - to be like the people they want to be like and to belong for behaving rather than for providing something of value ... you see it especially in cult-like orgs, which is what the liberals function as.)
  3. At the same time their speech is peppered with this type of thing, they will readily critique their lessers (regular peeps) for using 'um', 'like' and 'you know.' NPR is more guilty of these words than most, and one could argue it is the leader of it, since people who want to be intellects and aren't copy NPRs' and the liberal leadership's speech patters. It's funny that an org thought of as a clear thinking set of smart and educated so called journalists is the US leader in spreading the virus of bad language. (But bad, murky, unclear language is a requirement of being a weasel)
  4. The phrases are unconscious virtue/group-membership signals.

Liberals are such followers. As Carville said of the beginning of his career, choosing which side to be on (I paraphrase) ... I chose democrats because they are easier to fool/lead/persuade - hence I could be more effective - better at my job.

56 posted on 03/03/2020 9:20:46 AM PST by tinyowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

The simple minded Roberts will act as a communist Democrat and support the Affordable Care Act.


57 posted on 03/03/2020 9:22:08 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange
Forgot to mention: Article 1. Section 8 is also abused by the dem/socs because it says, "general welfare". Forget my ramblings above about that clause in the Preamble.

Has "general welfare" ever been defined in a federal court? Never mind - that would take too much research.

58 posted on 03/03/2020 9:24:14 AM PST by A Navy Vet (I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Also LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
OK. I guess your people in DC should've executed with a tad more analytical rigor behind their policy. Instead they half-assed everything.

They had to pass it to find out what was in it.

59 posted on 03/03/2020 9:27:46 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (If White Privilege is real, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: John W

Considering Chief Justice Roberts’ former mental gymnastics on the subject, I expect that the Texas case will be overturned with Roberts writing the majority opinion. This case is probably the one thing keeping Ruth Bader Ginsberg hanging on all this time.


60 posted on 03/03/2020 9:28:18 AM PST by Tallguy (Facts be d@mned! The narrative must be protected at all costs!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson