Supreme Court poised to defeat another GOP challenge to the Affordable Care Act

[Ike★ 2,920]

And it's Trump's Mr. "I like beer" who's gonna be one of the deciding votes.

[kaz 2,445]

I like beer.  

[Hot Sauce 2,742]

I wouldn't get too excited. Getting rid of the entire ACA was never likely, just provisions that could be considered dependant on the mandate which will absolutely be cut. Pre-existing conditions and annual/lifetime limits aren't out of the woods yet.

[jehurey 3,298]

11 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

I wouldn't get too excited. Getting rid of the entire ACA was never likely, just provisions that could be considered dependant on the mandate which will absolutely be cut. Pre-existing conditions and annual/lifetime limits aren't out of the woods yet.

But the only way pre-existing conditions can be thrown out is if the whole law is thrown out.

 

And Republicans' (or in this case, Texas') entire argument is that because the mandate tax has been set at zero (by Republicans) the language of the mandate doesn't work, therefore the who law doesn't work.

 

Samuel Alito even pointed out how Republicans were presenting their argument, comparing it to saying that its like taking a piece away from a plane and telling us that the plane will crash by doing that. But we instead find out that the plane can still fly:

 

Quote

"At the time of the first case, there was a strong reason to believe that the individual mandate was like a part in an airplane that was essential to keep the plane flying," Alito said. "But now the part has been taken out, and the plane has not crashed. So, if we were to decide this case the way you advocate, how would we explain why the individual mandate in its present form is essential to the operation of the act?"

So, even between the conservative judges, there's a different perspective. A couple of them are saying "ok, lets just remove the mandate" and the others are saying "having the tax set at zero doesn't seem to be affecting anything in a negative way, so we don't even see that as a problem."

 

Now there is a history of Supreme Court justices grilling one side really hard, and then coming back to rule in that side's favor. But we don't know if that will be the case.

[Hot Sauce 2,742]

29 minutes ago, jehurey said:

But the only way pre-existing conditions can be thrown out is if the whole law is thrown out.

 

No, they can throw out provisions that are "inseverable" from the mandate while leaving the bulk of the ACA intact. What gets defined as inseverable from the mandate was what Texas was going to work on prior to the Supreme Court picking it up, so the SC deciding that would be unlikely and they'd just kick it back to Texas if anything.

 

I think just removing the mandate and determining everything else as constitutional and severable is the most likely outcome, but I'm not celebrating until they actually say so.

[jehurey 3,298]

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

 

No, they can throw out provisions that are "inseverable" from the mandate while leaving the bulk of the ACA intact. What gets defined as inseverable from the mandate was what Texas was going to work on prior to the Supreme Court picking it up, so the SC deciding that would be unlikely and they'd just kick it back to Texas if anything.

 

I think just removing the mandate and determining everything else as constitutional and severable is the most likely outcome, but I'm not celebrating until they actually say so.

But that line that I am typing is how the state of Texas was advocating their argument. They are specifically making the argument that the whole law cannot work by just removing the mandate, therefore the whole law MUST be ruled unconstitutional.

 

Its not my view, but theirs.

[Hot Sauce 2,742]

13 minutes ago, jehurey said:

But that line that I am typing is how the state of Texas was advocating their argument. They are specifically making the argument that the whole law cannot work by just removing the mandate, therefore the whole law MUST be ruled unconstitutional.

 

Its not my view, but theirs.

 

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-10011-CV0.pdf

 

Quote

We do the same here, directing the district court to employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate.

[...]

It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded. It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not. But it is no small thing for unelected, life-tenured judges to declare duly enacted legislation passed by the elected representatives of the American people unconstitutional. The rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today.

 

[jehurey 3,298]

4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

 

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-10011-CV0.pdf

 

 

Ok, you are posting words that were written by the two judges from the FIfth Circuit Court of Appeals in their ruling.

 

The things I was saying were from what Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins was trying to argue today.

[Hot Sauce 2,742]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Ok, you are posting words that were written by the two judges from the FIfth Circuit Court of Appeals in their ruling.

 

Yeah, because as I said the Texas case was in remand to determine the severability of ACA provisions as they relate to the unconstitutional mandate prior to the Supreme Court picking it up.

 

5 minutes ago, jehurey said:

The things I was saying were from what Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins was trying to argue today.

And? Does the legal argument of Texas suggest a fact? Texas says it's wholly inseverable, the other states defending the ACA say the mandate is completely severable. The Supreme Court determining themselves that some of the ACA is severable and some isn't or punting that decision back to the Texas district court is an entirely plausible scenario.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/how-the-supreme-court-could-rule-on-aca-case/

 

Quote

Legal experts have outlined several potential outcomes for the case:

The court could rule on standing, finding that the states and the two people named as plantiffs haven’t been injured and don’t have a right to sue. That would avoid a ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.
The court could uphold the ACA by finding the mandate is constitutional. Or the court could find the mandate is unconstitutional but severable from the rest of the law.
The court could uphold some of the ACA, finding the mandate along with other provisions, such as those pertaining to preexisting condition protections, must fall.
The court could nullify the entire the law by finding the mandate is unconstitutional and not severable from the rest of the legislation.

 

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20201109.853714/full/

 

Quote

Alternatively, the Court could rule that some or all of the ACA’s insurance reforms are inseverable from the mandate. This might include a handful of provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions.

 

[jehurey 3,298]

40 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

 

Yeah, because as I said the Texas case was in remand to determine the severability of ACA provisions as they relate to the unconstitutional mandate prior to the Supreme Court picking it up.

 

And? Does the legal argument of Texas suggest a fact? Texas says it's wholly inseverable, the other states defending the ACA say the mandate is completely severable. The Supreme Court determining themselves that some of the ACA is severable and some isn't or punting that decision back to the Texas district court is an entirely plausible scenario.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/how-the-supreme-court-could-rule-on-aca-case/

 

 

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20201109.853714/full/

 

 

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back down to a lower court (District Judge Reed O'Connor) for THEM determine just how much of the law is inseverable. And they also ruled that the lower federal district court "did not do its necessary legwork" when they originally determined that the entire law was unconstitutional.

 

Which is what we are now seeing being argued in front of the Supreme Court.

 

The Texas Solicitor General is basically trying to say that the lower federal district court's determination was correct. The Supreme Court Justices, along with the Californian Solicitor General are saying that the 5th Circuit was correct in saying that the law can still survive intact with only just minor removals, and a couple of Justices are going even further to suggest that the law doesn't need to be altered in any way because its already functioning without a penalty tax incentive, as is.

 

The legal argument of Texas suggests that that District Judge Reed O'Connor's ruling is sound. So yes, in a way, they ARE treating it like as if its a fact. Its just that nobody seems to be buying it.

 

(Also, Texas is also saying "Eight years ago, the people defending Obamacare were arguing in front of this very same Supreme Court that the individual mandate was inseverable from the other parts of the law". So they are treating that as a fact, and they are correct in that they did argue before the supreme court that specific thing).

Edited November 11, 2020 by jehurey

[Hot Sauce 2,742]

I don't even know what your point even is at this point when you're just re-stating stuff I've already said. The entirety of the ACA doesn't need to be thrown out to get rid of pre-existing conditions. It was the federal government's initial position, it's the position of the appeals court that ruled on it in Texas, and it's the position of the legal opinions within the two articles I linked.

[jehurey 3,298]

39 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

I don't even know what your point even is at this point when you're just re-stating stuff I've already said. The entirety of the ACA doesn't need to be thrown out to get rid of pre-existing conditions. It was the federal government's initial position, it's the position of the appeals court that ruled on it in Texas, and it's the position of the legal opinions within the two articles I linked.

 

And now the Texas Solicitor General was basically in Washington trying to advocate Judge Reed O'Connor's opinion.

 

That all I ever said in the beginning, and how the Supreme Court is reacting to it similar as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

You seem to think I was making an argument, when I was just stating what the Texas Solicitor General was trying to argue.

 

2 hours ago, jehurey said:

But that line that I am typing is how the state of Texas was advocating their argument. They are specifically making the argument that the whole law cannot work by just removing the mandate, therefore the whole law MUST be ruled unconstitutional.

 

Its not my view, but theirs.