Repealing Obamacare

[bystander]

Kavanaugh and Barrett, vilified by the left as Trump puppets, joined the 7-2 majority, as did Roberts and……gasp……Clarence Thomas

That's an important point. The hearings have become a travesty. Liberals are absolutely ruthless.

 

[Seattle Husker]

They didn't rule for or against, but merely that the 18 Red States in the suit lacked "standing". This seems to be a common SCOTUS strategy to sidestep any politically charged issues. Has that been as common in the past?

Much of the quotes I read is that the Red State argument was considered "weak" but I'm not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[OUBubba]

That's an important point. The hearings have become a travesty. Liberals are absolutely ruthless.

God love you, by. Not sure how you go from the current fact set to "liberals are absolutely ruthless"?

 

[bystander]

God love you, by. Not sure how you go from the current fact set to "liberals are absolutely ruthless"?

Guess you didn't see the Kavanaugh hearings.

 

[OUBubba]

Guess you didn't see the Kavanaugh hearings.

I just don't tie "liberals" to a 7-2 ruling. The SCOTUS has ultimate authority and a lifetime appointment so no manner of cajoling has any input on them.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Hey all you lawyers... didn't Roberts rule that ACA was Constitutional because the Individual Mandate was a tax (though Obama lied and said it wasn't) which is their legal right? And now that the penalty was repealed, why would the rest of it stand?

Here's my plain-ish English summary of how today's case reconciles with the previous one.

In the first ACA case, SCOTUS addressed the so-called "individual mandate." The four liberal justices held that the individual mandate was valid as a mandate. This position got only 4 votes, and thus did not prevail. CJ Roberts provided the critical 5th vote to uphold the individual mandate, but on much narrower grounds. He determined that an actual mandate would've exceeded Congress's authority. However, Roberts upheld the "mandate" on the basis that it wasn't really a mandate. Because the only penalty for failure to enroll was a relatively small monetary penalty, this was valid under the taxing power.

The logic of the first ACA case went out the window when Congress repealed the penalty/tax/whatever you want to call. The mandate language requiring everyone to purchase coverage is still on the books, but there is absolutely no penalty for noncompliance.

Addressing this new statute, seven of the nine SCOTUS justices held that the mandate language is now meaningless. It doesn't penalize anyone, so it doesn't hurt anyone. And if you aren't hurt, you have nothing to sue about.

The challenger's response was to spell out all the ways the law still hurts them. But being hurt by a law isn't enough. You have to be hurt by the facet of the law that is unconstitutional. The only thing that was alleged to be unconstitutional was the individual mandate, and without a penalty clause, that doesn't hurt anyone. Hence, no standing to sue.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Here's my plain-ish English summary of how today's case reconciles with the previous one.

In the first ACA case, SCOTUS addressed the so-called "individual mandate." The four liberal justices held that the individual mandate was valid as a mandate. This position got only 4 votes, and thus did not prevail. CJ Roberts provided the critical 5th vote to uphold the individual mandate, but on much narrower grounds. He determined that an actual mandate would've exceeded Congress's authority. However, Roberts upheld the "mandate" on the basis that it wasn't really a mandate. Because the only penalty for failure to enroll was a relatively small monetary penalty, this was valid under the taxing power.

The logic of the first ACA case went out the window when Congress repealed the penalty/tax/whatever you want to call. The mandate language requiring everyone to purchase coverage is still on the books, but there is absolutely no penalty for noncompliance.

Addressing this new statute, seven of the nine SCOTUS justices held that the mandate language is now meaningless. It doesn't penalize anyone, so it doesn't hurt anyone. And if you aren't hurt, you have nothing to sue about.

The challenger's response was to spell out all the ways the law still hurts them. But being hurt by a law isn't enough. You have to be hurt by the facet of the law that is unconstitutional. The only thing that was alleged to be unconstitutional was the individual mandate, and without a penalty clause, that doesn't hurt anyone. Hence, no standing to sue.

I'm up in York enjoying the cool weather and drinking beer, so I haven't read the opinion. But NJ sounds about right. If he's wrong, he's bullshitting well.

 

[bystander]

I just don't tie "liberals" to a 7-2 ruling. The SCOTUS has ultimate authority and a lifetime appointment so no manner of cajoling has any input on them.

I think that's the point. huisache mentioned the hearings and that's what I was referring to.

 

[OUBubba]

I think that's the point. huisache mentioned the hearings and that's what I was referring to.

Well, I would concede that was a **** show.

 

[mchammer]

Here's my plain-ish English summary… The only thing that was alleged to be unconstitutional was the individual mandate, and without a penalty clause, that doesn't hurt anyone. Hence, no standing to sue.

Then why does my employer mail me that form every January before tax season that says I had health coverage the prior year?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Then why does my employer mail me that form every January before tax season that says I had health coverage the prior year?

That's a legal requirement.

 

[mchammer]

That's a legal requirement.

Not after today. There is no point to send it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not after today. There is no point to send it.

There's no financial point to it, but if the tax code says to send it out, employers are going to send it out even if it makes no sense. Most aren't going to risk having to haggle with the IRS just to avoid sending out one form when they already have to send out W-2s.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Not after today. There is no point to send it.

Other than the law still requires it. Maybe the companies can claim they've been "harmed" financially? As it's a tax form the companies are likely reporting the same info to the government.

 

[mchammer]

There's no financial point to it, but if the tax code says to send it out, employers are going to send it out even if it makes no sense. Most aren't going to risk having to haggle with the IRS just to avoid sending out one form when they already have to send out W-2s.

At the least it sounds like I can throw it in the trash since there is no penalty for me.

 

[Mr. Deez]

At the least it sounds like I can throw it in the trash since there is no penalty for me.

Honestly I've always thrown mine in the trash. On the off-chance I actually needed it, I could get it.

 

[mb227]

Then why does my employer mail me that form every January before tax season that says I had health coverage the prior year?

Ever seen an effort to stop the wheels once in motion? Hell, look at masks...we have known for a year that they are utterly useless and people STILL make up reasons to keep the charade. They get vested in a process and it becomes justification to carry on forward, no matter how meaningless the task...

 

[iatrogenic]

Because the only penalty for failure to enroll was a relatively small monetary penalty, this was valid under the taxing power.

Man, are you sure? I specifically remember the first mulatto President saying it was not a tax.