Have we discussed the Obamacare decision?

breamfisherbreamfisher Senior MemberPosts: 4,777 Senior Member
edited December 2018 in The Lodge #1

I don't think so. One thing that I didn't know about with the Obamacare laws was that it also removed insurance's cap on lifetime and annual spending on each individual. This has now taken on a new meaning for me and my family, after looking at how much we've spent on healthcare for our newest child. This is in terms of hospitalization, doctor's office visits, medication, durable medical equipment, and the like.

Our child has cystic fibrosis. This has brought the whole "healthcare debate" into new considerations for us. I'll admit... it's changing how I view some things. Luckily we have good insurance.

Anyway, some are arguing that because the tax penalty is $0, there's still a tax, it's just not levied, and that the ruling is incorrect. Others have said it could be easily changed by the new Congress and we'll be back to where we were. What's y'all's opinions?

«13

Replies

  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,164 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #2

    I'm kinda confused on how can a Texas Court rule on something the SCOTUS already settled?

    I'm not a lawyer... so someone help me out.

    Sherb??

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,096 Senior Member

    @NZ Indicator said:
    I'm kinda confused on how can a Texas Court rule on something the SCOTUS already settled?

    Sherb??

    yeah, that's the the Crux of the issue.

    I'll have to do some reading and get back to you.

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,096 Senior Member

    So Joe, here's the deal: the Roberts court said that Congress had authority enact the individual mandate under the taxing power. Trump's tax reforms zeroed out that penalty. So there's no actual tax. That's the rationale for the ruling. And because the mandate is the key provision of the law, the mandate cannot be severed from the remainder of the law.

    I'm inclined to believe that US supreme Court precedent controls, but the Federal Judge who decided the case apparently determined that if there wasn't an actual tax, the Supreme Court's opinion was distinguishable.

  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,164 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #5

    That makes some sense.

    Just seemed odd to me that a lower court would take up an issue already been decided by the Supremes.

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,096 Senior Member

    Here's a contrary view, jointly written by a conservative and a liberal. Worth your time.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/opinion/obamacare-ruling-unconstitutional-affordable-care-act.html

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,777 Senior Member

    sherb,

    I admit I just glanced over the NYT article, but what do you feel of the argument that while states brought the suit forth, they wouldn't suffer any injury and therefore had no legal reason to bring the case to court? Since Obamacare applied to people, not states, it would have had to have been brought by citizens, not states suing "on behalf" of citizens who might not have actually petitioned the states to bring forth the case?

  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,164 Senior Member

    @sherb said:
    Here's a contrary view, jointly written by a conservative and a liberal. Worth your time.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/opinion/obamacare-ruling-unconstitutional-affordable-care-act.html

    Thanks for that.

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member

    My free New York Times articles have been used up for the month.

    Is the gist that Congress in 2017, by not repealing Obamacare but getting rid of the penalty, made the mandate severable? That's what I've been seeing from others.

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,096 Senior Member

    @Steven said:
    My free New York Times articles have been used up for the month.

    Is the gist that Congress in 2017, by not repealing Obamacare but getting rid of the penalty, made the mandate severable? That's what I've been seeing from others.

    Yes, that's the gist of it. When coupled with the general principle that laws are always severable unless Congress expressly says otherwise, it looks like a fairly easy case. I'm hardly an expert in this area though.

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member

    From what I remember, I believe the DOJ argued that the mandate wasn't severable. Knowing that Obamacare wouldn't work without the mandate, the Dems couldn't allow SCOTUS to just cut that out and leave the rest intact.

    From what I've read though, the argument is that the 2017 Congress takes precedence over the 2010 Congress.

  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,002 Senior Member

    I've read other similar articles, and spoke with an expert in constitutional law over drinks. There's a good chance the appeals court will overturn and that the SC will not not choose to review after that.

    I hope things work out for you and you family, Bream.

    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #13

    Remember, this is the 5th Circuit. There's a reason this was filed in Texas...win or lose, this case was going to be appealed. If any appeals court is going to find against the government, it would be the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

    The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is to conservatives as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is to liberals.

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,096 Senior Member

    @breamfisher said:
    sherb,

    I admit I just glanced over the NYT article, but what do you feel of the argument that while states brought the suit forth, they wouldn't suffer any injury and therefore had no legal reason to bring the case to court? Since Obamacare applied to people, not states, it would have had to have been brought by citizens, not states suing "on behalf" of citizens who might not have actually petitioned the states to bring forth the case?

    You mean the justiciability argument? The idea that the court can only remedy a legally cognizable injury? I don't think it has to be brought by individuals for individuals to allege a particularized injury. But judge for yourself.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5629711-Texas-v-US-Partial-Summary-Judgment.html

    See the Standing argument starting at page 11.

  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 1,072 Senior Member

    @sherb said:
    So Joe, here's the deal: the Roberts court said that Congress had authority enact the individual mandate under the taxing power. Trump's tax reforms zeroed out that penalty. So there's no actual tax. That's the rationale for the ruling. And because the mandate is the key provision of the law, the mandate cannot be severed from the remainder of the law.

    I'm inclined to believe that US supreme Court precedent controls, but the Federal Judge who decided the case apparently determined that if there wasn't an actual tax, the Supreme Court's opinion was distinguishable.

    Since Congress zeroed out the tax unless there is some other enforcement mechanism I don’t see any issue.

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,777 Senior Member

    @sherb said:

    You mean the justiciability argument? The idea that the court can only remedy a legally cognizable injury? I don't think it has to be brought by individuals for individuals to allege a particularized injury. But judge for yourself.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5629711-Texas-v-US-Partial-Summary-Judgment.html

    See the Standing argument starting at page 11.

    Read it. Looks like that was a dead end. From what I've read the severability(?) argument is going to be the big bugaboo.

    And George, thanks for the well-wishes. Good thing is that being close to Orlando, we have two excellent Cystic Fibrosis care centers within an hour's drive, three excellent pediatric hospitals, and all as I said our insurance and the care center we use (Nemour's) has been great on many, many things. That being said, the whole idea of "pre-existing conditions" and "lifetime limits" has become much more real to me. I'm paying more attention than I did.

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,246 Senior Member

    @breamfisher said:

    @sherb said:

    You mean the justiciability argument? The idea that the court can only remedy a legally cognizable injury? I don't think it has to be brought by individuals for individuals to allege a particularized injury. But judge for yourself.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5629711-Texas-v-US-Partial-Summary-Judgment.html

    See the Standing argument starting at page 11.

    Read it. Looks like that was a dead end. From what I've read the severability(?) argument is going to be the big bugaboo.

    And George, thanks for the well-wishes. Good thing is that being close to Orlando, we have two excellent Cystic Fibrosis care centers within an hour's drive, three excellent pediatric hospitals, and all as I said our insurance and the care center we use (Nemour's) has been great on many, many things. That being said, the whole idea of "pre-existing conditions" and "lifetime limits" has become much more real to me. I'm paying more attention than I did.

    Ever since I can remember I have believed that one's ability to pay should not determine whether they get the medical care they need. I always found the idea of deciding the value of a life on such a superficial measure was immoral. I do think that health care like fire and police protection is a necessary public service.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,002 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #18

    One of the things that separates lefties and righties, even those that agree on most things, is that center-lefties like me believe that decent basic health care is a right, like education, and not a privilege based on your ability to pay for it.

    How to achieve delivery of that right is a matter of debate.

    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,246 Senior Member

    The common derision I have receive from righties is if I believe it is a right, I am a communist.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member

    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,940 Senior Member

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    Technocracy. Eliminate the money system and replace with an energy system, universal healthcare for all from birth to death.

  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 1,072 Senior Member

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    Do away with fee for service. Go with global, capitated payments to providers. They will think twice before ordering up tests and procedures. 30% of tests and procedures are medically unnecessary.

  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,002 Senior Member

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    You are phrasing the issue as same for all, therefore rationing. Try thinking basic adequate healthcare for all, with the option for employers and individuals to buy additional insurance coverage.

    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,246 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #24

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    Right because you are okay with rationing based on keeping the poor out of the system. You value human life on their earning ability.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member

    @Green Mt Boy said:

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    Do away with fee for service. Go with global, capitated payments to providers. They will think twice before ordering up tests and procedures. 30% of tests and procedures are medically unnecessary.

    Then you risk not having enough providers - aka rationing

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #26

    @fishingcomic said:

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    Right because you are okay with rationing based on keeping the poor out of the system. You value human life on their earning ability.

    I just said I'm with you. Find a way, I'll vote for your plan.

    I'll even take the risk of being called a communist.

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member

    @George K said:

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    You are phrasing the issue as same for all, therefore rationing. Try thinking basic adequate healthcare for all, with the option for employers and individuals to buy additional insurance coverage.

    You're thinking money is the only way to ration.

    Despite what Ed might think, resources are not infinite. How will they be rationed? And then show the American people that that is better than the current system.

    There's no free lunch.

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,556 Senior Member

    @EdB said:

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    Technocracy. Eliminate the money system and replace with an energy system, universal healthcare for all from birth to death.

    Do you have some kind of system that you're notified when certain words pop up? Technocracy, energy credits, oil etc.?

  • CO NativeCO Native Senior Member Posts: 1,553 Senior Member

    @George K said:
    One of the things that separates lefties and righties, even those that agree on most things, is that center-lefties like me believe that decent basic health care is a right, like education, and not a privilege based on your ability to pay for it.

    How to achieve delivery of that right is a matter of debate.

    Problem is that you're giving away the most expensive thing in this country. That's what makes it hard.
    There needs to be some sort of a tiered system. A basic one for the non-working/non-paying and a better one for the people who can afford to pay.

  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,940 Senior Member

    @Steven said:

    @EdB said:

    @Steven said:
    When you guys figure out how to ration (without the use of technology credits, of course) with an appropriate allocation of resources, I'll be with you.

    Technocracy. Eliminate the money system and replace with an energy system, universal healthcare for all from birth to death.

    Do you have some kind of system that you're notified when certain words pop up? Technocracy, energy credits, oil etc.?

    Whenever rationing of natural resources or scarcity come up I am triggered to express my opinion that an abundance exists which allows the even distribution of goods and services and rationing is not necessary anymore. I see that there is now robots that can do surgery, what's next? The march of modern technology continues despite efforts to impede it and will eventually result in the end of the money system.

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,777 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #31

    @George K said:

    You are phrasing the issue as same for all, therefore rationing. Try thinking basic adequate healthcare for all, with the option for employers and individuals to buy additional insurance coverage.

    I've gotten to be more in line with this over the years, in part because I know my insurance is paying for the uninsured. The questions are:
    1. What is basic?
    2. What is adequate?

    The other issue I have is that you're basically giving people the services of another (the healthcare providers.) The questions then become:
    1. How are they compensated?
    2. Do we have basic government employees who can provide the care, with dedicated private professionals for the more involved care?
    3. Or do you just use private professionals who are paid through a government system?
    4. Does this mean we'll have more bureaucracy to administer this? How do we pay for that?

    I'm sure there's more questions to asked and answered. Just some observations.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.