Bowsite.com

Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

By Adam Cancryn and Paul Demko

A federal judge in Texas late Friday threw the health coverage of some 20 million Americans in limbo by ruling Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage.

The invalidation of the landmark 2010 law is certain to send shock waves through the U.S. health system and Washington after a midterm election seen in part as a rebuke to Republican efforts to tear down Obamacare.

The decision will be immediately appealed, said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of blue states in intervening to defend the law. It could ultimately become the third major Obamacare case to be taken up by the Supreme Court, which has twice voted to uphold the law.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee in Fort Worth, Texas, issued the decision gutting the law in response to a lawsuit from 20 conservative-led states that sought to have the Affordable Care Act tossed out. They successfully argued that the mandate penalty was a critical linchpin of the law and that without it, the entire frameworks is rendered unconstitutional.

“In sum, the Individual Mandate ‘is so interwoven with [the ACA’s] regulations that they cannot be separated. None of them can stand,’” O’Connor wrote in his decision.

The decision came a little more than 24 hours before the sign-up period for 2019 Obamacare coverage is set to close.

Republicans zeroed out the mandate penalty as part of their 2017 overhaul of the tax code. It’s slated to disappear next year.

The Justice Department took the unusual stance of partially siding with the conservative states seeking to strike down the law. As a result, 16 mostly Democratic-led states intervened in the case to try and save Obamacare. But O’Connor didn’t agree with their argument that by striking the tax penalty but leaving the rest of the federal health care law in place, Congress had clearly indicated its belief that they weren’t inseparable.

Many legal experts are skeptical that the lawsuit will ultimately succeed. But the victory at the lower court level means that there will be a cloud hanging over the future of the law for months, if not years, to come.

House Democrats, who won back the chamber after campaigning heavily on defending protections for pre-existing conditions, have been weighing different options for saving Obamacare when their new majority is seated early next month. One possibility is passing a resolution authorizing the House general counsel to defend the health care law on the chamber's behalf.

The ruling puts the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers in a bind. They've promised to save pre-existing condition protections if the court threw them out, but for years been unable to agree on an Obamacare alternative that would maintain the law's stringent safeguards.

Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who oversees Obamacare's insurance marketplaces, told reporters late last month the administration had a back-up plan if the court overturned the law. She declined to provide specifics at the time.

Neither the White House nor HHS immediately responded to requests for comment."

Maybe this is why.

Yes.

They also need to institute it for auto, home, and life insurance.

Think how much better off everyone would be.

The whole Obamacare idea was insane, as why would ANYONE with a brain who's healthy buy "insurance" for something they don't currently have when they can buy it AFTER the event occurs? That was why they had to force you to buy it by involving the ****ing IRS. Too bad the people who were robbed by the IRS for not buying it can't get their money back.

Medicare for all is doable, sensible and necessary.

Agreed. We can use the VA as the model for compassion and efficiency while the weaponized IRS can be the enforcement arm.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a gov't healthcare system for some, as long as they pay for it and not everyone else.

On the bright side, without "free" healthcare and having to pay up front in cash, the dilemma of human overpopulation will soon be checked and global warming will no longer be an issue. Resources will not be consumed at an alarming rate and the environment will be clean.

They are claiming the Judge's decision is 'unconstitutional!'

Hey, Nancy!

YOU wrote the bill and if it's unconstitutional, that's all on YOU!

Every single Republican voted AGAINST passage, remember?

Maybe you should have read the bill before you passed it so you would have known "what's in it."

Answer:

Not one damned thing.

AlMarshall,CTHunter,pennylane,martymoose,CarlRI,Mavery,HunterBrad,BarKeep,BaseballFever,Buckhunte,rbuckhunter,CactusJack,FranklySpeaking,JamesMurphy,Lobstah,MergeLeft,nevergiveup,PHayes,PSEBow,PZ,sitting_bull13,SpencerRoth,MikeV,sarapodockeating,Tightlines,Resist,BenG,Patriot,maxhiltonhead,Atheist,RyanfromBoone, YFP,etal, do best.

2) then it morphed into; well, if the poor can’t afford healthcare, let the charities or the emergency rooms deal with them. 3) when that didn’t work and the government attempted to help via ACA, you screamed “overreach!” And “unconstitutional!” Because you’re simply not willing to give poor people healthcare.

That pretty much sums it up.

Homework-look up "judicial activism" as you clearly are lacking in understanding of the term as you attempt to cast it.

You may also want to look up the SC ruling on the PPACA and what has changed since that ruling was issued.

Or you may continue to play to the rabble with further illustrations of your ignorance on the pertinent facts; your call....

Judicial activism, an approach to the exercise of judicial review, or a description of a particular judicial decision, in which a judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate legislative or executive actions. Although debates over the proper role of the judiciary date to the founding of the American republic, the phrase judicial activism appears to have been coined by the American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in a 1947 article in Fortune. Although the term is used quite frequently in describing a judicial decision or philosophy, its use can cause confusion, because it can bear several meanings, and even if speakers agree on which meaning is intended, they will frequently not agree on whether it correctly describes a given decision. (Compare judicial restraint.)

I think what judicial activism means to you and others here is whether you agree with decision or not. If not, it’s judicial activism.

Or maybe he thought the law was constitutional and you are just blowing anonymous hot air.

"Roberts rejected the Obama administration's claim that the individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Instead, Roberts interpreted the mandate as a "tax rather than a command," and merely affirmed that Congress has the right to levy taxes, a modest ruling that hardly expands federal power."

By the way, I'm not in a closet.

While you're certainly entitled to have an opinion to posit it in the form of a conclusion absent any supporting facts is the height of arrogance. Aside from the fact that in my case you couldn't be more wrong that's the main flaw with your thesis above.

Here's where you have your major issue; you incorrectly assumed that a judge ruling on the constitutionality of a law was somehow judicial activism as conservatives see it. (You did qualify the reference in the post I responded to.)

The fact of the matter is that the judiciary exists for (among others) that very purpose; to determine if a law is constitutional or not. You also missed my point about this judges ruling occurring after changes following the SC ruling had taken place; you're comparing apples to oranges as the facts being weighed have changed.

Now ask any conservative about a judge not ruling on the constitutionality of a law as defined by the FF but rather ruling on the interpretation of the fairness of a law and you'll hear "judicial activism" in short order. It's the principle, not the outcome that makes the definition.

The statement I quoted is merely you working furiously to prop up a failed argument; apply your opinion as a statement of fact and you avoid the sticking point of having to validate the claim; I hate to say it but that is the hallmark of the stereotypical liberal argument; feelings trump facts.

From a personal perspective if a judge rules merely on the basis of the constitutional issue the outcome is irrelevant to me, like, dislike or any shade in between. Then again, that's the intellectually honest position and as a result it's one I'm quite comfortable with.

When I have an opinion I share it but I state it as just that-opinion. If I want to make the leap from opinion to valid conclusion than it is incumbent upon me to research the facts first; in this case you could have simply asked the question "how do you define judicial activism?" Of course the risk you'd have taken would be the answer wouldn't fit your narrative.......

The real shame here is you squandered an opportunity to actually learn something because winning an argument appears to be more important that being correct to you.

That, by the way, was an opinion supported by tangible evidence (how you "made" your case......)

Why is health care so pricey?

Well, for starters, PutZ, the problem started during WW II when YOUR team implemented wage and price controls.

That did not include employer paid benefits, so employers, who were desperate for workers because millions of young men were overseas fighting to keep you from having to speak German or Japanese today, upped their employer paid benefits in order to attract more workers.

Given that GOVERNMENT enforced policy, employers turned to offering radically enhanced benefits to include employer paid health insurance.

"So what's the problem?" as an uniformed and financially clueless idiot such as you might ask.

The problem was that was the start of financially separating the user of medical services from the cost of medical services.

After all, if someone other than YOU is paying for something you want and you have little or no financial interest in the cost, it's simply human nature not to care what it costs, because 'someone else is paying for it.'

Then to make matters worse, along came Medicare.

When the actual costs of Medicare soon outran what the GOVERNMENT said it would cost, (Like that's never happened before with a government program!), what did the government do to hide that from the public?

Answer: They limited what they would pay doctors and hospitals for the services they provided and they did so at reimbursement levels that were FAR below the actual costs of said services.

To compensate, doctors and hospitals raised what they charged non-Medicare patients by YUGE amounts, just to break even.

It's called 'cost shifting,' but apparently only economically illiterates such as you are mentally incapable of understanding such a simple concept.

In other words, you clown, a YUGE part of the high cost of health care is the result of insane and really stupid GOVERNMENT policies and regulations, which YOU support and which YOU advocate.

So quit with the whining about why 'the poor' can't afford health insurance when the policies of YOUR TEAM are a major part of WHY they can't afford it!.

I ask you why they choose to to take this case to a TX court? Why not take the case through the California district? Answer that question honestly then you will see that my activist judge comment is not that far off. Or at least in the ball park. By the way, my first post was based in fact as the SCOTUS already ruled the individual mandate was constitutional. Maybe you missed that fact. If you more better or alternative facts please enlighten.

Arrogance huh. I don’t think you know what arrogance means. First, you scold me for my opinion because isn’t based in fact...so you say. How the hell do you know? It’s based in as much fact as your opinion. It’s an OPINION...get it. Second, unless you are a SCOTUS judge or maybe a lawyer who argued the case, I would say neither of our opinions are really based on true understanding of the facts. They are just opinions. Get over yourself. I didn’t see you rushing to lay some fact based opinion knowledge on anyone who said they don’t “believe” in climate science. What the hell does believe have to do with science? Because it’s thier Opinion. Unbelievable!

Nva- who pays for the uninsured when the go to the hospital now? I hate to tell you but you indirectly are paying for it through tax breaks for losses to hospitals which are business. I guess we should just go back to buying insurance individually. I think you miss the advantages of group health coverage. I’m curious...do you buy individual health insurance?

For the most part I enjoy your thoughts.

But in this case, I just laugh at them.

The fact is, by every measure, single payer healthcare will be far less per person than what we currently have in place. Will healthcare and big pharma make less money? Almost certainly. But the fact that they make money on sick people sickens me. So I couldn't care less about them or their profits.

1) our for-profit healthcare system has us so far behind countries with universal healthcare in every recorded metric. Our maternal mortality rate alone (39th in the world) is horrendous. 2) Our infant mortality rate is below a dozen other nations. 3) if we're governing based on the will of the people, well then, 72% of all Americans supporting a single payer healthcare system.

*Sigh*.....some people just make it too easy......

I guess in your haste to chastise conservatives you missed this rather significant detail: "A federal judge in Texas late Friday threw the health coverage of some 20 million Americans in limbo by ruling Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage."

This judge's ruling is not in opposition to the SC ruling but rather a ruling based on the altered status of the PPACA post-SC ruling. Apples......oranges.....

"By the way the thesis to my question above is based fact."

No, your thesis is every bit as flawed as I pointed out as documented above. FYI, the documentation, contrary to your thesis, is based in fact.

"I ask you why they choose to to take this case to a TX court? Why not take the case through the California district? Answer that question honestly then you will see that my activist judge comment is not that far off. Or at least in the ball park."

I see you slept through Civics and not just reading comprehension.....In case you're unaware each of the 50 states in the United States has the right to file a suit challenging a law; we're not the United States of California, we're the US of A.....

By the way, that was an honest answer to a disingenuous question.

"By the way, my first post was based in fact as the SCOTUS already ruled the individual mandate was constitutional. Maybe you missed that fact. If you more better or alternative facts please enlighten."

Someone call Guinness; I think the record for missing a point is in real trouble.....Again, since you insist on missing the point: "They successfully argued that the mandate penalty was a critical linchpin of the law and that without it, the entire frameworks is rendered unconstitutional."

SC-PPACA WITH mandate = Constitutional, Present decision PPACA WITHOUT mandate penalty= Unconstitutional. Apples.....oranges.....

For the record, I'm fully aware of the definition of arrogance; pointing out the painful lack of facts behind your opinion isn't arrogance, it's accuracy. Failing to acknowledge the obvious flaw in your thesis on the other hand......

As to Kyle's rejoinder I'd label that in this case as well-earned......

So we know you HATE profits.

Yet without profits, our life expectancies would be ten or more years shorter than they are today and when logging on to the internet, we'd all still be using dial up modems!

They filed the case in TX because they wanted to get the case in front of a conservative judge. This has happened in other cases and I acknowledge that liberals do the same. I’m not okay with either side doing it.

So congress removed the individual mandate so they could go to a conservative judge and get a ruling in thier favor. I understand that. That in no way makes my point on the hypocrisy involving activist judges invalid. Are you actually saying that no matter where they filed the case that all judges would make the same ruling? I’m sure they choose the district in which they filed the case very carefully. If you don’t want to acknowledge that there could be some judicial activism at play in a case involving the most partisan and controversial law in our generation then you are just being obtuse.

Until the case on appeal makes through the court system and is overturned then my opinion on this issue is that the republicans have hamstring the law and used an activist judge to further thier cause. If it makes you feel better you can come back here and claim that I was wrong about conservative judges can be activist too. That still does not invalidate my opinion because it’s mine not yours. If you don’t agree then fine. But don’t tell me that my opinion is blatantly wrong or not based on some facts.

The majority of Americans want universal healthcare. If you don’t like it then that’s your opinion. I’m good with that. I have health insurance so none of this matters to me. And I’m good with paying more for the benefit for all Americans. That’s my opinion. If you don’t like it then that’s your problem.

So, in the name of the Dunning Kruger thread, educate me. I want to know how to make health care more affordable, which actually works for folks. Is health care quality a novelty based on what you can afford? Is there a different system which could work? I'm not trying to be a jacka** asking this. I'm serious. Because in the big picture, other than not repeating mistakes of the past, the real focus is where we are, and how health care improves for all. So fill me in. How is it fixed?

Great question on how to pay for it.

Let the flames begin...

I believe in Universal Access to health care, and no I cannot fully detail how that should look, other than mostly market driven with little government involvement other than to "signal" more desirable outcomes.

Name calling anyone who offers an opinion other than the staunchest right wing one says more about the name caller.

I am hesitant on this issue. I see it differently than all other "consumer" goods. My Christian upbringing taught me that we are our brother's keepers. The Marines shored up this view.

Go to Gregory Mankiw's blog. You will have to search, but there is some information that certainly lends credence to the fact that our economy is held back measurably by people remaining in jobs they hate, but have health care benefits. If freed up to be more mobile, economic activity would increase. Marginal tax revenue also goes up, not predicting any where near enough to pay for it.

How to pay then...privitize Social Security and Education. Use savings here to partially offset cost.

Yes, no doubt higher taxes as well, on all of us, not specifically health care providers. Do not want to negatively impact profit incentives for new cures and advancements.

I have always supported say a .1% increase in payroll taxes to cover catastrophic costs, those above the typical one million life time limit that then wipes a family out.

And pre-existing conditions must be covered. Insurance is a pool. This is in line with being a caring society.

And I am Ok for higher tax rates for those who live life styles encouraging a greater use of health care resources, obesity, smokers, drinkers etc. Behavior by choice is different than a genetic condition one has no control over.

Yes, this is only a start. I start with answering what type of society do we want. Certainly one that encouages personal responsibility, but also one that is caring. Neither government or markets are perfect. I support solutions that take into account thorough cost benefit analysis.

Surely the name calling will begin, but I attached my name to this view.

If every major civilized country on earth can guarantee health care to all and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less than we do, it is stuoid for anyone to suggest that the United States of America cannot do the same.

We can do it while saving billions and providing healthcare for our neediest people. The poor, the elderly and the chronically ill.

"That which requires an action from one person on behalf of another cannot be a 'right.' "

I call BS.

I personally know Canadians who came to the USA to get their healthcare because of the ridiculously long waits.

You are as much a partisan hack as is several here from the other side.

No way should we encourage our health Care system to duplicate Canada's. Diseases would win if we do.

Mutations for example will always create new challenges. Canada focused on what we know today. It takes profits to perform research that makes us ready for tomorrow. Google the percent of health care related patents various companies/country origin are awared.

Yes, there are long waits and rationing in Canada, just like some of the great Socialist countries limit health care services to pain management for those over 85. Something we need to consider here. Shift spending more from the old to the young.

How would I do that, no death taxes but you pay 100% for your own health care out of monetary assets until they are depleted. This would not include your home.

You don't know shit! I have many friends who live in Canada and they go on and on and on about how shitty their health care is. Sure, maybe it's sufficient if your kid has a runny nose, but you'll change your mind when something more serious rears its ugly head....like major surgery, cancer treatments, or organ transplants. There's a reason so many Canadians fly to the USA for treatment...and it ain't because they have a better healthcare system! On top of that ask them how much they're TAXED for their lovely healthcare system and I hope you have a few extra hours on your hands because you'll need it. I remember a while back I was on a moose hunt just prior to a major Canadian election and the radio talk show were on fire with Canadian citizens bitching about their healthcare system. Anyway, I think it's YOU that is living in a fantasy world and spreading "myths".

Maybe I am getting old and tired, or maybe I have always been intellectually challenged.

For me, true wisdom is seldom found in sound bites or one sentence lines, especially today.

Sure, Christ's answer to the greatest commandment would be one of those few times for me. But that contrasts to the Sermon on the Mound.

I am convinced that our FF were brilliant. They knew all challenges would need to be met by serious thinkers guided by a few core pillars. But the checks and balances are there for a reason, and both sides disagree as to the reason.

With each passing day, I am convinced that all of us are contributing to the further erosion of this still Great Nation. We read posters critical of the lack of Civic Responsibility being taught today, and we discuss it with discourse that is anything but civil.

Like I said, maybe I am just....

Civility is earned.

PZ has shown us over and over and over again he is not worthy of it.

I mean our national discourse, of which I share blame.

Frank, those are good points. Ill have to google the guy you noted, Mankiw to see more about what he has laid out.

My observation is that the expense incurred should anything beyond a run of the mill sinus infection or similar happen, so rapidly exceeds what the average American - even wealthy American - can pay, that there has to be some sort of larger strategy to pool costs. A well organized single payer system has merit, but will likely never work here. It's a political lightening rod, and to do it well, in a fashion that could affordably work would require a level of bipartisan thinking which appears unfathomable. So some form of "other" option is likely the answer.

It seems that some form of exchange system is reasonable - but apparently only if it does not have mandates. The little kid in me wants to say, make a national exchange, no mandate for coverage, but if you are not covered you have to pay cash upfront or have a payment plan in place and started prior to starting services. IE, you crash into a a ditch coming home from work in a snow storm, get a concussion and a fractured femur, you get no treatment until some how you accept terms for payment or you can not leave the hospital prior to accepting terms for payment (better, you actually pay in full). Ideally this would be a fairly high interest rate to serve 1.) as motivation to buy insurance and 2.) to help pay for the folks who inevitably default and go bankrupt attempting to pay for that pesky health issue that just popped up. I recognize this is the little kid in me acting ridiculous, so it's not realistic or a good option. I also realize that few if any people operating as providers would practice this way - their mission is to help people first.

Though in that example, everyone else can operate with a plan that is via employer or purchased through an exchange etc. Again, no "mandated" state/federal penalty for being uninsured, just very rigorous costs to the uninsured user of the health care system.

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting any changes to federal or state programs designed to help low income, unemployed, elderly folks. Yes, things have to happen to get folks off those benefits if possible. Reality though, show's us those numbers will never be fully eliminated, so some safety system helps those folks and reduces cost the rest of us incur given they are not using the system with out reimbursement to providers and the facilities they work out of.

It just really appears to me, that short single payer, you have to have some sort of exchange system in place which at least influences people to be covered. Without that, you have people gambling they will stay healthy, then when they dont, going into ruin financially and raising rates on the rest of us via taxes and higher insurance premiums to pay for these gamblers care. In that situation, you still have private insurers attempting to compete to offer good plans to folks via employers and exchanges. There is a big motivator to folks to be insured - added costs of medical service and either denial of care or similar if you cant pay/be on a payment plan immediately.

For example, if it's ok to penalize a smoker for their choices - it's ok to penalize a person who doesnt want to get coverage and live "dangerously" via another method.

Given the majority of Americans have something that would/could classify as "pre existing", there needs to be protection for that area.

I'm essentially brain storming. This topic is massively large and impacts all people while being intertwined into almost every aspect of life we know from manufacturing to research to work force productivity etc etc etc. The complexity is such that I dont believe there is a single "best" answer. Just several possible options, all of which will have warts, but could also help the most folks, most of the time.

That's what got me curious after reading the thread. Many people (here and beyond) seem congealed in the idea that the ACA smelled slightly worse than Hippo Poo. But other than occasionally suggesting cheap privately purchased insurance (which Ill editorialize here by saying, generally sucks and costs the rest of us money when folks get a bad dx) due to increase "competition", I've never seen options presented to solve the challenges we face on this front. If single payer or an exchange are not the ticket, then educate people. Teach me what will make health care work better. Whatever is broken with the system is what it is. How do we make it work for all of us as well as possible?

It's a hyper complex question to ponder.

Here is the deal though....even if you are poor you still need to be productive in society. If you are on the government tit you should have to give something in return. If you are able bodied then some type of service should be required. If you are a guy that works 40 hours a week but is still below the poverty level you should receive help but it should be required of you to earn it. Maybe you have to pick up trash on your day off? I don't know what it could be, but you should have skin in the game.

If a guy is content to work a low paying job, I know plenty of them, give him some incentive to do better and work himself into a better situation where he doesn't need assistance and doesn't have to pick up trash on the weekend. This is no different than what many of us do with our side hustles we use for our hobbies.

I want to spend more money than I should on archery equipment and bowhunting so I mow grass on the side. I have made good money busting my butt on my days off. As my wife and I have done better financially through promotions it is no longer as necessary. I no longer have real motivation to keep doing my extra work so I have gradually cut it out.

Judges are supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, which is EXACTLY what this judge did.

Read Williams quote again.

NOWHERE does he say it's not good and honorable to help those in need.

What he's saying is that REQUIRING such behavior makes "Person A" "Person B's" slave and therefore, there is a right to no such a thing.

Nope! Not the ACA as it stands now. What you're missing is that Congress removed the individual mandate last year, while the SCOTUS made its ruling when the mandate was still part of the ACA.

So SCOTUS has NOT ruled on the bill as it stands now.

Right out of the gate "Wait, I thought all you conservatives didn’t like activist judges. Didn’t the Supreme Court already ruled on this?"

The inference is plain even for the willfully obtuse; additionally the premise, as I've pointed out is flawed in that the SC ruling is not on the same law as the recent removal of the mandate penalty can open the severability issue which differs in a constitutional scope from the SC ruling. Let me know if I need to break out the crayons and do a stick figure diagram for you....

"Some on the CF rail on activist liberal judges and there is some hypocrisy in this thread. If my comments stung you because you are “conservative” then that’s on you."

Oh please, you seem to have cornered the market on bruised feelings. No, I dislike disingenuous postings riddled with a serious flaw; that you continue to avoid that failing should not be hoisted as a badge of honor as you seem wont to do but worn as the equivalent of Hester Prynne's "A"....

"They filed the case in TX because they wanted to get the case in front of a conservative judge. This has happened in other cases and I acknowledge that liberals do the same. I’m not okay with either side doing it."

Fair point; that being said as long as the law is followed if we dislike the usage then we take that up with the legislative branch of government.

"So congress removed the individual mandate so they could go to a conservative judge and get a ruling in thier favor. I understand that. That in no way makes my point on the hypocrisy involving activist judges invalid."

Sorry, but it does; judicial activism would have been ruling on the exact same language (law) as the SC ruling and arriving at a different (unconstitutional) outcome; we both know this is not the case, you are the one insisting on denying a demonstrable truth. I don't know that I'd qualify that as hypocrisy but it's certainly a disingenuous argument at minimum.

"Are you actually saying that no matter where they filed the case that all judges would make the same ruling? I’m sure they choose the district in which they filed the case very carefully. If you don’t want to acknowledge that there could be some judicial activism at play in a case involving the most partisan and controversial law in our generation then you are just being obtuse."

If you're going to try and put words in my mouth I'd appreciate it they framed a cogent argument more than a convenient straw man to knock down. And again, you're basing your argument on your original flawed premise (the law being ruled on was identical to the original ruling. Your continued failure to acknowledge this glaring flaw by the way points to the obtuse party being the guy you gaze at every morning in the bathroom mirror.

"Until the case on appeal makes through the court system and is overturned then my opinion on this issue is that the republicans have hamstring the law and used an activist judge to further thier cause. If it makes you feel better you can come back here and claim that I was wrong about conservative judges can be activist too. That still does not invalidate my opinion because it’s mine not yours. If you don’t agree then fine."

I'm not sure why you'd presuppose that I need you to be wrong on this or any issue to "feel better"; quite frankly I'm ambivalent about you and my only issue is the poor construct of your argument made worse by your refusal to acknowledge the painfully obvious.

"But don’t tell me that my opinion is blatantly wrong or not based on some facts."

Much as I hate to disappoint you in this instance the flawed premise makes your opinion wrong and is the root cause of it being factually inaccurate as well.

And no, I don't feel good about that either.....if anything I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for you.

Spike - interesting points for sure. Certainly similar to President Trumps campaign comments. In that scenario, how does the market facilitate functional (that's the key) and affordable plans for purchase (vs plans with very shaky coverage or massive donut holes etc)? Or in H4W's case, does a bigger Insurance firm in that situation essentially buy up offerings so that they control a region or the full country monopolizing the system.

This is where I get all tangled up. I've seen the government mess stuff up enough times to be skeptical... But I've seen the private sector do it too, just as often. It may only be "feel good" but at least in intent, the government "should" be attempting to do things in "our" interest. By definition, the private sector is doing things in "their" interest. A good company is going to blend both pretty darn well - raising funds for itself and providing a positive service/product for the customer (I'm self employed and try to do that, and big companies do this as well, and "easy" example could be Patigonia, agree with their stance on things or not, they are trying to do what they feel is good, and make money)... so in a vacuum, that seems (private) the way to go. I'm just not convinced the private sector is concerned with quality care options, as much as quality returns on investment.

Monopolies can only exist with the help of government.

No, my friend.

We need actual cases and FACTS.

That's totally because the Feds don't approve of competition.

If I remember correctly, you majored in poli sci? When a person studies economics/business, and covers things like pricing theory, you are going to read a mountain of historical cases regarding collusion.

It really does happen. You know I am pro business. But, we debate ad naseum the proper role of government, and protecting competitive conditions is generally accepted, to varying degrees, as one of those roles. Generally, with less competition we will see higher profits than in highly competitive industries.

Profits are great, they can be plowed into higher wages and benefits as well as R&D to advance technology for all.

They can also be used for marketing to maintain oligopolistic conditions. Where does the negative out weigh the positive? Most do not feel totally comfortable allowing solely business folks to make that calculation, unless most means participants on the CF only;)

Maybe, but sans government protections and favors, monopolies will not stand.

Yet it can only be a monopoly because it commands the men with arms who enforce their rules.

And therein lies the problem.

For the last time...it’s my opinion. You don’t like it tough s%#t. It is my opinion Republicans used an activist judge to try to end Obamacare. Everything you say is Your opinion. I think it’s flawed but I understand that it’s your opinion and it’s based on your reasoning.

Please feel free to print this, frame it, then hang it on bathroom wall so you can read it every time you have waste coming out of both ends it seems.

I’ll give you this. You are one hell of an argumentative person. You must be one hell of a joy to ride with on an 8 hour trip to go elk hunting. Before you say it , I do not know you personally but the above is my OPINION base on my factual experience conversing with you on the CF.

Exactly WHAT did the judge do that was even remotely 'activist' and legislating from the bench?

You don't do passive aggressive very well so I'd keep your day job.....The only person on his thread having a hard time doing anything is the person who's been wrong on the lower court ruling and has steadfastly refused to admit it. Lest you miss the intended target of that cold, sobering reality that would be you.

It's interesting to see you state that it's now only an opinion when earlier your insisted you had facts to back it up; that's a positive step as you never did have any facts (as you were woefully off-target) now just do the remaining bit and man up and admit you were wrong and dispense with the sophomoric insults. Or, hit the nearest deli and get some cheese to go with your whine.....

FYI, you're a name on a web forum so save the tough **** hooh-hah for someone of equal maturation as that last post of yours displayed; they might actually be impressed by it.

Kyle,

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to that question; he's dodged addressing it from me at least 4 times now.

Homework...look up the definition of opinion.

Only if you are incredibly gullible would you do that.

If I'd ever claimed to be able to see into the hearts of men you'd have more than the latest lame straw man argument; frankly bubba, that's the kind of chicken sheet tactics I expect from the far left crowd....

Again, I stated you had the facts wrong in positing that the rulings were the same when in fact the basis of the rulings (the actual facts) differed.

But hey, by all means keep dodging instead of manning up; look up character if you're searching for some worthwhile homework......right now yours is lacking.....

“Ordinarily there’s no guarantee a lawsuit will go to a particular judge because U.S. courts rely on a random lottery to assign cases. But the Wichita Falls court was staffed by only one full-time judge, O’Connor, whose regular chambers are in Fort Worth. There was no need for a lottery.”

There’s a fact for ya. Give it up Mike. You really want to keep arguing that my opinion is wrong? IT IS MY OPINION. Mine...not yours. Think about that for a minute. Seriously, take a deep breath, set your pride on a shelf, and think that logic through. Go ahead and take a few minutes and a deep breath before you answer.

The rest are neutral news services or left leaning...

That reality just caused me to have a good laughing fit and I appreciated it, though perhaps not for the intended reason. It was good stuff!

"bk is exactly correct, which is why Roberts, an activist judge in this case, actually changed the "fine" into a tax"

There you go again!

This case is decidedly different than the one you believe SCOTUS supported simply because, as you keep claiming despite any evidence, that someone 'had' something on Justice Roberts.

Every decent conservative knows Ford had the goods on Roberts, but in exchange for his vote on the ACA agreed to go after a future nominee. Sheesh, I thought you were in the know.

Who the 'ell is 'Ford?'

It was sarcasm. I suck at humor!

So no worries at all on your end!

No, your statement that the rulings were identical was factually incorrect; it was incorrect when you initially used that as the basis for your post and it remains equally incorrect via every dodge or goal post shift and every obfuscatory effort made to date.

bad karma summed it up quite well; perhaps you'll offer an "opinion" that trumps his JD; or perhaps, just perhaps your humility will have returned from it's witness protection sojourn and you'll man up and admit you were flat out wrong.

Speaking of breaths, don't worry your little head about me holding mine for you to pony up that admission......

My two cents..... Here in PA, earlier this year, we had a gerrymandering case brought before the state SC. Looking at the district maps, it was clear that the republicans had redrawn district maps to favor themselves. Yes it's been going on by both party's for years. I mean it was really egregious. And the state SC ruled as such. Proper ruling. Instead of kicking it back to the legislature to redraw the district maps, the state SC redrew the map. THAT is judicial activism. Filing a suit in an area where your certain to get the outcome you want isn't activism, it's smart lawyering.

The whole point to my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of some here who go off the rails if a judge doesn’t rule how they think the judge should. If it’s a Democrat judge then it is automatically judicial activism. Then when a Republican judge (like in the TX case) rules on a case that fits thier political narrative and judicial activism my be at play they cheer. I was simply pointing that you can’t have it both ways. I think some here are being obtuse to that point in this thread.

It will be interesting to see where this ACA case goes.

It wasn't activism. He struct down the law as unconstitutional, considering that the individual mandate has now been removed. He didn't change the law, he didn't add to it or take anything away. He ruled it was unconstitutional. I'm not sure where your getting activism at....

I haven't dodged your point once; the fact of the matter is I've stated it as wrong from the get-go, a point the JD in the room (bad Karma) and Tom (Bowbender) seem to both get.

Judicial activism would have been in play had the law been left intact and this judge ruled differently than the SC had; it would be impossible to argue otherwise in that scenario.

You have fixated on the location and to be fair, it's not an unfair supposition; where you err in my opinion is in feeling an inherent manifestation of judicial activism can be a foregone conclusion based on either geography or political ideology; those who truly honor what they swear to uphold rule solely on the basis of the law and neither of those two conditions ever factor into their decisions.

Texas Judge Doubles Down on Obamacare Ruling

And the law’s apologists are more worried than they admit.

American Spectator: Over the holiday weekend, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued an order reiterating his December 14 decision to strike down Obamacare. As expected, he also stayed enforcement of his ruling to allow time for a challenge in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by a group of Democrat-controlled states led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Most “news” reports focused exclusively on the stay, which comprises one page of the document, while ignoring twenty-nine pages that Judge O’Connor devotes to a detailed elucidation of his previous ruling. As this excerpt from the order makes clear, he’s confident he will be upheld:

If the judicial power encompasses ignoring unambiguous enacted text — the text citizens read to know what their representatives have done — to approximate what a judge believes Congress meant to do, but did not, then policymaking lies in the hands of unelected judges.… This the Constitution does not allow. This the Supreme Court does not allow… the Fifth Circuit is unlikely to disagree.

That 29 of the order’s 30 pages were ignored by the legacy media is significant. They have also studiously avoided substantive discussion of the judge’s December 14 decision, choosing instead to denounce him as a (gasp) conservative who (even worse) frequently ruled against the Obama administration. O’Connor has been criticized by all manner of legal “experts” whose arguments concentrate more on the president who appointed him than the text of his ruling. NPR, for example, pointed out that he was nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush. They augmented this sophisticated analysis with the opinion of a partisan law professor: