Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,111 posts)
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 07:48 PM Jul 2019

Appeals Court Seems Skeptical About Constitutionality of Obamacare Mandate

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: New York Times

NEW ORLEANS — A panel of federal appeals court judges on Tuesday sounded likely to uphold a lower-court ruling that a central provision of the Affordable Care Act — the requirement that most people have health insurance — is unconstitutional. But it was harder to discern how the court might come down on a much bigger question: whether the rest of the sprawling health law must fall if the insurance mandate does.

In 90 minutes of oral arguments on whether a federal district judge in Texas was correct in striking down the Affordable Care Act in December, two appellate judges appointed by Republican presidents peppered lawyers with blunt questions while the third judge, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, remained silent.

The two Republican appointees, Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Trump in 2018, seemed particularly skeptical of the Democratic defendants’ argument that Congress had fully intended to keep the rest of the law when it eliminated the penalty for going without insurance as part of its 2017 tax overhaul.

The arguments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit were a stark reminder of the enormous stakes of the case, not only for millions of people who gained health insurance through the law but for the political futures of Mr. Trump and other candidates in the 2020 elections.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/appeals-court-seems-skeptical-about-constitutionality-of-obamacare-mandate/ar-AAE48fU?li=BBnb7Kz



Sounds like the Republicans want to commit murder/suicide.
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

klook

(12,134 posts)
1. Every driver in my state has to have car insurance.
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 07:57 PM
Jul 2019

Is that unconstitutional too?

Please proceed, Rethugs.

alwaysinasnit

(5,037 posts)
2. So, if I am reading this correctly, it would be deemed constitutional if people ARE federally
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 08:04 PM
Jul 2019

mandated to have health insurance????

elleng

(130,156 posts)
3. Possible.
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 08:06 PM
Jul 2019

Sounds like judges recognize difficult issues, which is good.

bucolic_frolic

(42,676 posts)
4. If Congress didn't want to keep the rest of the law, why didn't they repeal it?
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 08:07 PM
Jul 2019

GOP had majoriy, they could have passed anything.

These judges are too big for their britches. Constitutionality is for the High Court to decide.

NoMoreRepugs

(9,260 posts)
5. At this point in time not sure we want SCOTUS deciding anything of consequence.
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 08:33 PM
Jul 2019

Mr.Bill

(24,104 posts)
7. If I remember correctly, they tried to.
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 08:41 PM
Jul 2019

John McCain got in the way.

Mr.Bill

(24,104 posts)
6. Are they really dumb enough to think
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 08:39 PM
Jul 2019

that taking health insurance away from tens of millions of people is a good idea in an election year?

pazzyanne

(6,518 posts)
8. Who said they were smart?
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 09:04 PM
Jul 2019

Once again they are trying to kill the ACA without at back up plan. Don't hold you breath until they come up with something. They have had plenty of opportunity to come up with a viable heath insurance and so far it has been a fail.

Mr.Bill

(24,104 posts)
9. They have no intention whatsoever
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 09:10 PM
Jul 2019

of coming up with a replacement health insurance program. If they had their way there would be no Medicare, Medicaid or VA.

pazzyanne

(6,518 posts)
13. Yep and they are working on eliminating those ASAP.
Wed Jul 10, 2019, 02:20 AM
Jul 2019

Skittles

(152,965 posts)
14. they just want to trash Obama's legacy
Wed Jul 10, 2019, 03:16 AM
Jul 2019

they do not care who it hurts

groundloop

(11,488 posts)
10. Hadn't this already been decided by the Supreme Court?
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 09:31 PM
Jul 2019

Honest to God, the repubs have tried to kill Obamacare in the courts so many times I can't remember which court decided what part of the law.

And this shit is getting personal. I'd like to retire in the next year but am not old enough for Medicare yet and was planning on using ACA to fill the gap. These motherfuckers don't give a damn about who they hurt, just that they erase any good that Democrats have done.

progree

(10,864 posts)
12. I know this is bullshit, but there's this from the article
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 10:54 PM
Jul 2019
A question at the heart of the case that was much discussed during Tuesday’s arguments is whether the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring most Americans to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty remained constitutional after Congress eliminated the penalty. When the Supreme Court upheld the mandate in its landmark 2012 ruling that saved the law, its decision was based on Congress’s power to impose taxes.

So I guess the answer is that the Supreme Court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the mandate, but rather on the constitutionality of the penalty, err tax. So now that no tax is being imposed, but the mandate still exists, even though there is no penalty, err tax, ...

I dunno, just trying to put the pieces together...

If the mandate is indeed unconstitutional, the next question is whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act can function without it. In December, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth said it could not and declared that the entire law must fall.

Well, gee, it seems to be working without the mandate so far -- we're halfway into 2019, the first year without the penalty (2018 was still a penalty year -- https://www.aarp.org/health/health-insurance/info-2018/penalty-no-health-insurance-2018-fd.html )

That said, I acknowledge that it's not working for people who need it but can't afford it (thanks mostly to Repuke sabotage).

From the excerpt in the OP:
The two Republican appointees, Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Trump in 2018, seemed particularly skeptical of the Democratic defendants’ argument that Congress had fully intended to keep the rest of the law when it eliminated the penalty for going without insurance as part of its 2017 tax overhaul.


Oh, I dunno, should courts be mind-reading? Myself I think it would be grand if the ACA worked without the penalty. I suspect some who voted to get rid of the penalty felt that it was wrong to penalize people who couldn't afford it, but otherwise were OK with the ACA as long as it was optional.

Getting rid of the penalty was also part of a huge tax overhaul bill, and that a majority of congress people voted for the bill does not mean that a majority were supportive of every provision it it.

progree

(10,864 posts)
15. From Kaiser Health News - "Legal scholars -- including those who oppose the ACA -- consider the Texas
Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:00 AM
Jul 2019

dubious"

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/07/09/npr-affordable-care-act-back-in-court-5-facts-you-need-to-know

Last December, Judge Reed C. O'Connor agreed with the Republicans. "In some ways the question before the court involves the intent of both the 2010 and 2017 Congresses," O'Connor wrote in his decision. "The former enacted the ACA. The latter sawed off the last leg it stood on." ((by ending the penalty, err, tax -Progree))

Legal scholars — including those who oppose the ACA — consider the Texas case dubious ((Texas v. United States, the case being argued now at the Appeals Court -Progree)).

In a brief filed with the appeals court, legal scholars from both sides of the fight over the ACA agreed that the Texas lawsuit's underlying claim makes no sense.

In passing the tax bill that eliminated the ACA's tax penalty but nothing else, Congress "made the judgment that it wanted the insurance reforms and the rest of the ACA to remain even in the absence of an enforceable insurance mandate," wrote law professors Jonathan Adler, Nicholas Bagley, Abbe Gluck and Ilya Somin. Bagley and Gluck are supporters of the ACA; Adler and Somin have argued against it in earlier suits. "Congress itself — not a court — eliminated enforcement of the provision in question and left the rest of the statute standing. So congressional intent is clear."


From the excerpt in the OP:
The two Republican appointees, Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, and Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by President Trump in 2018, seemed particularly skeptical of the Democratic defendants’ argument that Congress had fully intended to keep the rest of the law when it eliminated the penalty for going without insurance as part of its 2017 tax overhaul.


Myself I think it would be grand if the ACA worked without the penalty. I suspect some who voted to get rid of the penalty felt that it was wrong to penalize people who couldn't afford it, but otherwise were OK with the ACA as long as it was optional.

Getting rid of the penalty was also part of a huge tax overhaul bill, and that a majority of congress people voted for the bill does not mean that a majority were supportive of every provision it it.

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
16. Locking...
Wed Jul 10, 2019, 09:33 AM
Jul 2019

The consensus of Forum Hosts agrees this is analysis/opinion about how the court might rule - not yet important news of national interest. Please post the article in the General Discussions Forum.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Appeals Court Seems Skept...