SCOTUSCare Follies: Et tu, Justice Thomas?

American Thinker.com ^ | June 23, 2021 | William Sullivan

[Kaslin]

Leftists are celebrating the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, in California v Texas, to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare. And why wouldn’t they? Sure, Obama’s flagship legislation may be little more than a leaking and rotting hull in the D.C. harbor nowadays, but progressives are clinging to it nonetheless. And in spite of 18 red states’ most recent broadsides to sink her once and for all, this latest ruling ensures that she remains afloat for a little while longer. The 7-2 decision was pretty lopsided, too, with a concurring opinion that was written by none other than arguably the leftists’ most despised justice, Clarence Thomas.

In their concurring and dissenting opinions regarding the latest challenge against the constitutionality of Obamacare, California v. Texas, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito find themselves on separate sides of the political divide.

Why? Well, the answer to that question may be more complex than most Americans might find in the headlines, cursory examinations, or fake news reports.

First, let’s revisit some history.

Do you remember why Obamacare’s constitutionality was originally considered questionable? It was the individual mandate, upon which the fiscal efficacy of the law relied. Congress no more has the power to make the purchasing of individual health insurance compulsory than it has the power to make the purchasing of broccoli compulsory, as the late Antonin Scalia cogently argued.

[ClearCase_guy]

The law is “whatever”.

[Alberta's Child]

I have said for years that these states and other affected parties have gone about the whole process of challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare completely wrong. In fact, they’ve been so consistently wrong that I’m getting more certain that they have no interest in overturning ObamaCare at all.

The simplest way to challenge ObamaCare is to have a state insurance commission approve insurance plans in the state that save customers a ton of money because they don’t meet all the stupid, onerous requirements of ObamaCare — i.e., they may not cover pre-existing conditions, they don’t cover sex change surgery, they don’t cover substance abuse treatments, they don’t cover treatments for STDs, they have annual or lifetime coverage caps, etc. A medical insurance plan that has half these provisions could probably cost at least 50% less than an ObamaCare-compliant plan.

This would clearly be a great avenue for a legal challenge to ObamaCare because the insurance industry is specifically regulated at the STATE level, not by the Federal government.

Here’s my simple question: Why hasn’t the Affordable Care Act ever been challenged on these grounds?

[mewzilla]

The law is whatever Deep State says it is.

[Gay State Conservative]

I must admit that I don't understand ObamaCare very well. Could someone briefly explain why it's so bad...now that the mandate has been struck down?

To be clear...I certainly understand why the mandate was despicable.

[Rusty0604]

Great points. I’ve been complaining since the beginning that people that purchase individual policies are required to pay for maternity and pediatric care, even if the individual will never have need, in addition to the other points you made. It’s socialism.

[Alberta's Child]

The individual mandate was actually one of the LESS problematic provisions of ObamaCare. The provisions that make it such an awful law are those that involve requirements for insurance plans that make them prohibitively expensive. I would cite the elimination of annual and lifetime coverage limits, the mandatory coverage for all pre-existing conditions, and “minimum essential services” coverage.

Interestingly, I have found that the most destructive and blatantly unconstitutional provisions of ObamaCare are also the ones that are most popular even among people here on FR.

[phoneman08]

The ruling is a blessing in disguise. Had Obamacare been struck down in its entirety with the current Congress and President, it would have been replaced with straight-up single-payer dubbed Medicare for all almost immediately.

Unfortunately, as was predicted back when Obamacare was passed, it has become an albatross that is essentially untouchable now that enough people have come to depend on it.

As originally planned, Obamacare is the gateway to single-payer.

[Cen-Tejas]

........sadly, in my opinion, millions of Americans have grown to have about the same level of respect for John Roberts corrupt Supreme Court as we do Christopher Wray’s corrupt FBI and Garland’s utterly corrupt Justice Department.

And, coming in at # 1 on the corruption scale is/are the Alphabet Networks who masquerade as “news” organizations.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The Republicans, and I believe Romney in particular, proposed plans similar to the ACA long before the ACA.

Ignoring the Constitution and legal precedents, it only makes fiscal sense that if an insurance company is forced to cover pre-existing conditions and provide unlimited coverage for life, then everyone that company is forced to accept must be forced to pay premiums from birth onwards.

For example, if pregnant women only start paying premiums when they start requiring prenatal care and stop paying after the birth of their children, then this could bankrupt an insurance carrier.

The insurance companies are not idiots. They read the news and see the surveys and understand that the American people now expect coverage for pre-existing conditions. So even if the ACA is eliminated due to its unconstitutionality, the insurance companies will still be stuck paying for pre-existing conditions.

The current system, however jury-rigged and held together with chewing gum and baling wire, is acceptable to the insurance companies and so it will stand.