Post by icemandios on Mar 26, 2019 4:05:32 GMT
DOJ Concludes Obamacare Unconstitutional And Should Be Struck Down
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/25/2019 - 23:10
In a dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's legal battle against President Obama's health care law, Justice Department lawyers now say the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down.
Having previously argued, under AG Jeff Sessions, that only the law's pre-existing condition protections should be struck down, DoJ lawyers told a federal appeals court Monday it thinks the whole of ObamaCare is unconstitutional, siding with a Texas district court ruling that found Obamacare unconstitutional.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said "it is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."
"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal," said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.
The Hill points out that the case centers on the argument that since Congress repealed the tax penalty in the law's mandate for everyone to have insurance in 2017, the mandate can no longer be ruled constitutional under Congress's power to tax.
The challengers then argue that all of ObamaCare should be invalidated because the mandate is unconstitutional.
Most legal experts say legal precedent shows that even if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of ObamaCare should remain unharmed, as that is what Congress voted to do in the 2017 tax law that repealed the mandate's penalty.
Of course, at a moment when Trump's political capital is soaring after the Mueller/Avenatti debacles have crushed the #resistance, as The Hill reports, the move is certain to prompt new denunciations from Democrats, who had already seized on the Trump administration's earlier call for the pre-existing condition protections to be struck down.
"This lawsuit is as dangerous as it is reckless. It threatens the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans across the country -- from California to Kentucky and all the way to Maine," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement.
"The Affordable Care Act is an integral part of our healthcare system... Because no American should fear losing healthcare, we will defend the ACA every step of the way."
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/25/2019 - 23:10
In a dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's legal battle against President Obama's health care law, Justice Department lawyers now say the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down.
Having previously argued, under AG Jeff Sessions, that only the law's pre-existing condition protections should be struck down, DoJ lawyers told a federal appeals court Monday it thinks the whole of ObamaCare is unconstitutional, siding with a Texas district court ruling that found Obamacare unconstitutional.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said "it is not urging that any portion of the district court's judgment be reversed."
"The Department of Justice has determined that the district court's comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal," said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.
The Hill points out that the case centers on the argument that since Congress repealed the tax penalty in the law's mandate for everyone to have insurance in 2017, the mandate can no longer be ruled constitutional under Congress's power to tax.
The challengers then argue that all of ObamaCare should be invalidated because the mandate is unconstitutional.
Most legal experts say legal precedent shows that even if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of ObamaCare should remain unharmed, as that is what Congress voted to do in the 2017 tax law that repealed the mandate's penalty.
Of course, at a moment when Trump's political capital is soaring after the Mueller/Avenatti debacles have crushed the #resistance, as The Hill reports, the move is certain to prompt new denunciations from Democrats, who had already seized on the Trump administration's earlier call for the pre-existing condition protections to be struck down.
"This lawsuit is as dangerous as it is reckless. It threatens the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans across the country -- from California to Kentucky and all the way to Maine," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement.
"The Affordable Care Act is an integral part of our healthcare system... Because no American should fear losing healthcare, we will defend the ACA every step of the way."
Specifically, as The Washington Times concludes, the administration’s decision to fully back the lawsuit will loom large on Tuesday when Democrats plan to propose measures that would make Obamacare more generous and combat Mr. Trump’s changes to the program, which they’ve dubbed “sabotage.”
[As a side note, from one who plied the waters of health insurance for a few years, there is no justification for covering "pre-existing conditions." Yes, it can be done, but somebody will pay. The somebody will be those who pay too much for their good health. You don't drink, you don't smoke, you're young, you exercise, you eat healthy. Good for you. You get to pay for those who didn't do much of any of those things and/or who are just damned old.
As an agent, I found the people who wanted health insurance were those who were sick. I found the people who didn't want health insurance were young, and healthy. Problem was, back then, my ready to buy people were uninsurable....at least for the things they wanted insco's to pay for.
And so the maxim with which we were supposed to "educate" young, healthy people was, "Money doesn't buy you health insurance, good health does."
Well, that sounds reasonable considering no amount of money could buy you health insurance if you were already on death's bed.
So, the guaranteed issue health insurance needed to be paid for by somebody. The somebody would be YOU, your tax dollars and/or your unnecessarily higher premiums. And the problem with that is, try to tell the invincible 20-something he/she needs to pay a lot of money for, as far as they've known, the unlikely event they'd have open heart surgery (or whatever).
Speaking of guaranteed insurance, have you ever looked at guaranteed life insurance? Now there's the model of insurance that brings the fallacy into sharp focus. Sick? Bad Sick? No problemo. You can buy life insurance (but not much). And it's a Vegas bet between you and the insurance company's actuarial staff/computers. And no insurance company goes into the game without the odds greatly on their side. You will pay, over time, more than they will eventually pay by the time you bag out.
So, this was always a mini-step toward single-payer healthcare, aka, government. Aka, you pay for them.
And, just BTW, if the D's ever do outlaw inscos, and put everybody on medicare, the bad news is MC only pays 80%. You will have to pay 20%, you will have to pay for MC to pay for 80%, and you will have to pay deductibles for hospital (per visit, per problem) and for docs, per annum.
So, as always, if it sounds good, it comes from the gummint, don't bend over to pick up the soap!]