alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
As a result of this, surely some will be.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Federal Judge strikes down Affordable Care Act
- Thread starter Molinaro
- Start date
As a result of this, surely some will be.
That's their entire approach to government. Break it and claim it never worked in the first place so it should be removed to give tax cuts to their donors.
Molinaro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 4,781
Republicans seem intent on making the US the place where democracy, integrity, honesty and values went to die.
The Supreme Court decided that the penalty can be enforced because Congress has the authority to impose a tax. They didn’t declare that the Constitutional basis of the entire law required a monitary penalty for not buying heath insurance.
The original ACA regulations waived the penalty in most cases where people did not buy heath insurance.
Last edited:
So after two years of controlling Congress and the White House all the Republicans have come up with is to replace the plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions with a plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions?
Correction. After two years of controlling Congress and the White House all the Republicans have come up with is to repeal the plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions. They don't have anything on the "replace" part of the plan...
I thought that was what the republicans were trying to do: unable to repeal it they instead seek to break Obamacare as much as possible so that it will fail.
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,396
Indeed. Trump was the one who added "replace" to it. Not that he had a plan either, much less actually gave a ****.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Trump does care about removing ObamaCare, because Obama.
Armitage72
Penultimate Amazing
It's always been about destroying everything that President Obama did, in retaliation for the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Could do what they did with NAFTA, have essentially the same thing but just stick a different name on it so Donny can pretend he did something.
Dude, you live in California. There is no shortage of free stuff here, we are the entitlement capitol of the country. Just get in line!
In fact the new CA Text Messaging Tax will help you get a free phone!
Text Message Tax
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
This! I also don't doubt that he blames Obama for his looking like a fool regarding the birth certificate nonsense.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
That would require him to recognize that it made him look like a fool. I don't think he's capable of that.
Meanwhile, it doesn't appear that the decision will have any immediate effect, pending the inevitable appeals. The Supreme Court previously found it constitutional but its composition has changed and this decision was based on the exclusion of the individual mandate penalty.
Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
As I've said in other places...
The ACA is, effectively, the GOP's response to the US health care problem, put in place by a moderate dem looking for compromise. If it actually gets tossed out entirely (and many people are questioning this ruling), then I see no reason why the Dems don't just go for Medicare for all, and then turn wildly hostile to the courts if they toss that out as well.
(It's really quite remarkable that the GOP can't even accept a "yes" coming from a black guy...)
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I think he definitely knows when he's made to look like a fool and that is why he hates Obama so much. He doesn't acknowledge that he is a fool, only that he was made to look like one.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As I understand it, this actually depends on how exactly the law is written. Some laws are written in so that their clauses are explicitly separate from each other. In that case, one clause may be struck down without affecting the others. However, if this explicit separation is not spelled out, then the whole law must generally be taken as a single entity, that fails entirely if any part of it fails.
It may also be the case that the clauses of the law must be linked in order for the law to succeed. This is the kind of thing that courts must rule on. Another thing that courts may have to rule on is any custom or precedent that might apply to a specific category of law, where the laws are always assumed to be severable (several?) even when not spelled out.
All of which to say that it's not automatically the case with every law, that striking down one clause doesn't mean striking down the whole law.
I seem to recall some discussion a few years ago about how the ACA omitted the explicit wording that allowed its clauses to be ruled on separately from each other. But I don't have any details and can't vouch for the accuracy of that.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
Me too. We'll just have to hope that it's reversed on one of the lower appeals, with the new makeup of the Supreme Court I don't think we can count on them.
Nobody has yet provided an example where failure to include the magic words resulted in an entire complex law being struck down on the basis of one small part of that law.
Rather odd considering how often unconstitutional provisions get slipped into laws at the state level.
A more reasonable explanation is that a Federal judge known for his far right beliefs invented a novel legal theory to get rid of the entire ACA. An action that could result in a Circuit Court nomination by President Trump.
autumn1971
Illuminator
I very honestly see this as at least negligent homicide. The Republicans are knowingly sentencing tens of thousands of citizens to death in the name of the Party.
Not only have the idle rich declared that the workers don’t matter, they are actively seeking legislation that kills them off.