Obamacare Thrown Out by Judge (Unconstitutional), Raising Insurance Uncertainty

Obamacare Thrown Out by Judge, Raising Insurance Uncertainty

Obamacare was struck down by a Texas federal judge in a ruling that casts uncertainty on insurance coverage for millions of U.S. residents.

The decision Friday finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional comes just before the end of a six-week open enrollment period for the program in 2019 and underscores a divide between Republicans who have long sought to invalidate the law and Democrats who fought to keep it in place.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of Republican states led by Texas that he had to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, the signature health-care overhaul by President Barack Obama, after Congress last year zeroed out a key provision -- the tax penalty for not complying with the requirement to buy insurance. The decision is almost certain to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

We all saw this one coming. The moment the individual mandate was removed Obamacare became unconstitutional.

The left is going to have a massive apoplectic meltdown.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah. The "left", and a lot of people who may lose their medical insurance because of pre-existing conditions and stuff.


I guess.

a reply to: Xcathdra


President Trump and the Republicans own this and the rising rates as well as the millions of people that will lose their health coverage.

It was marginalized by the SCOTUS and went down hill from there with all the "differences" state to state.

It was never equally fair to all people.

Now Congress can start over LOL 😆

Love to see what the House "proposes" 😀

a reply to: Phage

To be fair, a lot of people lost their insurance when the law was put in place too.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah. The "left", and a lot of people who may lose their medical insurance because of pre-existing conditions and stuff.


I guess.

Then draft a law that is not unconstitutional. The left was warned by Scotus when the first challenge to it reached them. They found the law valid only because of the mandate, making it a "tax" law. Without that mandate it was unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra


President Trump and the Republicans own this and the rising rates as well as the millions of people that will lose their health coverage.

No - the Democrats who drafted it own this.

a reply to: ketsuko

Not really, though it may have cost them more to maintain it.

Net result was that far more got coverage. Right?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Without that mandate it was unconstitutional.

YTBD

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

Not really, though it may have cost them more to maintain it.

Net result was that far more got coverage. Right?

27 million more if I remember right. However that number was because people were forced to buy medical insurance.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Then draft a law that is not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS ruled the mandate WAS constitutional. Donald Trump took away a constitutional facet of the law. He and his party own the fall out.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

Not really, though it may have cost them more to maintain it.

Net result was that far more got coverage. Right?

...at the expense of the rest of us paying for it
Obama promised we could keep our doctors and the prices would go down.
neither happened.

a reply to: Xcathdra

However that number was because people were forced to buy medical insurance.

None of it was because they could not be refused coverage?

I'm gobsmacked.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Without that mandate it was unconstitutional.

YTBD

No it was determined in the scotus ruling. The law was upheld because it was a tax. Absent the mandate it wouldnt hold up.

and it didnt.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Obama promised we could keep our doctors and the prices would go down. neither happened.

Yea, well. Reality bites.

But rates were increasing all by themselves. Right?

a reply to: Xcathdra

YTDB

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Without that mandate it was unconstitutional.

YTBD

No it was determined in the scotus ruling. The law was upheld because it was a tax. Absent the mandate it wouldnt hold up.

and it didnt.

Of course, which is hilarious because Obama and the Democrats told the public it wasn't a tax.... but then turned around and argued it was a tax to SCOTUS.

Obama claiming Obamacare isn't a tax...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra

Then draft a law that is not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS ruled the mandate WAS constitutional. Donald Trump took away a constitutional facet of the law. He and his party own the fall out.

Only because of the mandate (became a tax law). In case you are unaware the President cant create nor pass congressional legislation. Only Congress can and in this case both parties voted.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

YTDB

Repeating YTBD doesnt make the facts go away. Scotus made the point about the mandate and now a federal judge reaffirmed that.

a reply to: Phage

Not really a good comparison. A lot of people who got coverage had deductibles so high that for all practical purposes they only had catastrophic coverage while paying for full coverage. They still couldn't afford a doctor, especially since all of their money went to insurers.

Obamacare was teetering on a knife edge from day one... it was a tax, but it was also a fee, it saved health care, but it took away health care, it enriched insurers at the cost of the people, it was Constitutional if all this went right, it wasn't if not... the whole thing was nothing more than a way to funnel money from individuals into insurance pockets that were already overloaded.

It's about time someone in the courts admitted it was a disaster from the start.

TheRedneck