Obamacare

A Texas Judge Just Ruled Obamacare Unconstitutional

The ruling will almost certainly be appealed.

|

Jay Mallin/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A judge in Texas just ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. If the ruling stands, the entire law will be struck down.

It's difficult to imagine that will happen, however, as the ruling is nearly certain to be appealed, and this particular case against the law has real weaknesses.

The lawsuit, which was filed by a group of conservative state attorneys general, stems from last year's tax law, which set the individual mandate penalty to zero.

The Supreme Court previously ruled that the mandate was constitutional, but only as a tax. Since it now raises no revenue, the argument goes, it's no longer a tax, and therefore not constitutional.

That's fair enough, as far as it goes. The mandate, which is effectively eliminated already, probably should be stricken from the books.

The problem is that the case also argues that the rest of the law is unconstitutional because of findings made as part of the passage of the original statute which say that the mandate is not severable from the rest of the legislation. The basic idea is that Congress never intended for the rest of the law to exist apart from the mandate. As judge Reed O'Connor wrote in the ruling, "Congress stated many times unequivocally—through enacted text signed by the President—that the Individual Mandate is 'essential' to the ACA." In this view, it's all or nothing.

The question, though, is which Congress? As Case Western Law Professor and Volokh Conspiracy contributor Jonathan Adler, who is a longtime critic of the health care law, has argued (along with others), the policy statements made as part of the original law don't really matter, not anymore, because last year's Congress told us quite clearly that they did believe the law could stand on its own without a mandate penalty. We don't have to guess at the intent of the Congress that modified the law, because they told us quite clearly that they believed that the rest of the Affordable Care Act could stand in the absence of a tax penalty.

Complicating things further is the fact that the Trump administration has taken the somewhat unusual step of declining to enforce the law's pre-existing conditions regulations, although the administration maintains that the rest of the law (namely the insurance subsidies and the Medicaid expansion) should stay in place.

This is the beginning of this particular legal saga rather than the end. And while anything is possible, the most likely outcome is that Obamacare remains in place; even if the case makes it to the Supreme Court, it's unlikely that the AGs will prevail, since Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion offering up a potential argument for saving the law. In any case, it looks like Obamacare's future will once again depend on the courts.

NEXT: One Year Ago Today, the FCC Killed the Internet

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Since it now raises no revenue, the argument goes, it’s no longer a tax, and therefore not constitutional.

    Hmm. Since the government runs a deficit, the income tax does not raise sufficient revenue, so it’s no longer a tax, and therefore not constitutional.

    Am I doing this right?

    1. No. The question is whether everyone is paying zero income tax because the income tax rate was set to zero, and the answer is “no”.

      No one is paying the penaltax because the tax is set to zero for everyone.

      1. I hope your not wasting energy analyzing this judge’s rationale…his ruling will never stand.

        1. And I hope we get a chance to revisit the penaltax ruling.

          1. Roberts should be given a chance to redeem himself after his disgraceful ruling on the subject.

    2. Roberts ruled the individual mandate raised revenue and was collected by the IRS, and that made it a tax regardless of anything Congress said.

      It was an extremely focused rationale and says more about Roberts’ deference than anything else.

  2. All opposition to Obamacare is based on racism. Hopefully this flawed ruling will be reversed.

    1. You are getting so good at this. Just the pure concentrated essence of the situation in one sentence. Hats off, sir!

    2. Not all opposition to Obamacare is based on racism. But plenty of those who oppose Obamacare are bigots. This batch of bigots doesn’t want to be known as bigots, and therefore hides behind masquerades such as “traditional values” and “color-blind,” but they’re the same type of bigots better Americans have overcome in connection with successive waves of intolerance and ignorance throughout our history. This latest bunch of bigots is nothing special, its reliance on the charms, insights, and character of Donald Trump notwithstanding. In America, the bigots do not win over time.

      1. The parodist does progressivism better than you do.

        Though saying racists hide behind color-blindness is a nice Orwellian touch.

        1. Bear in mind that the idea of the law being color-blind comes from the dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.

          If you reject the dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson then perhaps you fancy the majority opinion?

      2. More brain-dead racism from Pastor Costco, I see.

        His shtick is getting old.

        1. “Pastor Costco”

          I chuckled

          1. It is a good one.

            1. I also like Father Creepy.

      3. But wait! Some bigots support Obamacare. So that make Obamacare wrong, right?

      4. re: “In America, the bigots do not win over time.”

        And thank God for that. What confuses me, though, is RAK’s complete obliviousness to the fact that he’s the worst bigot in this community.

    3. Did you type in this comment while sitting in a Flat-Earth Society meeting?

  3. I’m not sure this ruling will survive, it will probably melt away like the dew under the glare of appellate review.

  4. I got another one of those letters warning me about my “shared responsibility payment” from 2015. 2015! I settled this years ago with a CPA.

    Tore it up and threw it in the trash. FUCK THE IRS.

    1. I think it’s just terrible you aren’t sharing in my responsibilities.

  5. The Kushner family is heavily invested in Obamacare through Oscar Health?Trump will do everything in his power to protect Obamacare as he has done throughout his presidency. Obamacare is stronger than ever and Oscar is on a path to profitability.

  6. All the people with pre-existing conditions already died from Net Neutrality being repealed and then died again even worse from the tax cuts. So the ACA wasn’t needed any more.

    1. I thought we died from Saddam’s WMDs and Benghazi!

      1. You bring up Benghazi in order to endorse and congratulate the President (Obama, at the time) and his administration lying to the American people.

        If you like the President lying to Americans, then what’s your complaint about Iraq WMDs?

        1. If you like your consulate, you can keep your consulate.

        2. Ben, Ben, come on now. Obama has a ‘D’ after his name. Not some awful’R’ like some big meanie.

  7. 1) Who is going to appeal this?

    2) Why does what congress thinks about this have anything to do with what is actually written?
    3) Is Suderman just wishcasting here?

    1. Seeing as how the fedgov via Justice is the defendants… and that they represent a POTUS who ostensibly wants this to fail… why would they appeal? There isn’t another defendant with grounds to appeal is there? I honestly dont know and an answer explaining this would be appreciated.

      As for #2: I think the argument about the newer Congress’ intent fails. They didn’t remove the penalty by letter because if they did, by the law itself, the law would fail. All they did was say “change $x to $0” thereby leaving the apparatus of a “tax” in place so as to not trigger severability. This seems to strengthen the GOP AGs arguments IMO.

      For #3? No clue.

      1. From the partial summary judgement document:

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
        Defendants,
        CALIFORNIA, et al.
        Intervenors – Defendants.

        Not sure how California is a defendant in any fashion, but from the complaint I find only:

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ?
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ?
        OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ?
        SERVICES, ALEX AZAR, ?
        in his Official Capacity as ?
        SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ?
        HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED ?
        STATES INTERNAL REVENUE ?
        SERVICE, and DAVID J. KAUTTER, ?
        in his Official Capacity as Acting ?
        COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL ?
        REVENUE, ?
        Defendants
        .

        1. On further research, it seems that in Texas an intervenor has standing to appeal so long as they intervened prior to final judgement. So expect California or others who joined as defendants to appeal.

    2. Kushner will appeal this because his health insurance company is flourishing under the reforms Trump has made to Obamacare.

    3. Complicating things further is the fact that the Trump administration has taken the somewhat unusual step of declining to enforce the law’s pre-existing conditions regulations, although the administration maintains that the rest of the law (namely the insurance subsidies and the Medicaid expansion) should stay in place.

      “Declining to enforce” means the law is whatever they decide the law is. What is written matters not at all, what the PTB think the law should be is all that matters. Remember all the harrumphing about “faithfully executing” when the Obama Administration declined to enforce parts of the laws he didn’t agree with regarding marijuana and illegal immigrants? That’s the new Rule of Law – the rule is that the law is subject to the whims of the Executive.

      1. If you don’t like it, get a writ of mandamus.

      2. And if he doesn’t “decline to enforce” immigration law he’s a poopyhead.

      3. Remember when Pres. Obama used “prosecutorial discretion” to simply ignore large swaths of immigration law? And when he created green card programs for “Dreamers” out of whole cloth?

        Back then I said that Democrats better be careful in what they fight for, because the next Republican President (and at the time I had no clue that we’d have Trump) could simply tell the Fair Labor board to ignore labor laws, etc. E.g. back in December before Trump even took office.

        They’re regretting a lot of things these days, or would be if they had good sense…

        “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

        “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone”

        The ‘Biden Rule’.

        The nuclear option in the Senate for confirmations, and the pre-election call to double-down on and invoke the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominations (see comments from Tim Kaine and Harry Reid before they lost the elections that they just *knew* they were going to win).

        So-called “prosecutorial discretion”, applied to immigration law, setting the stage for the same in labor law, environmental law, etc.

        Not bothering to even pretend to listen to Republicans on major legislation (Obamacare).

        Being derisive toward “fly-over country”.

        I for one hope they never learn their lessons.

      4. And this was just after the election…

        There was once a famous politician who gloated after his victory, taunting his opponents to their face: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

        That same politician would go on to ram through programs opposed widely (and by majorities of the population), issue a large number of orders, policy directives, and regulatory actions (and inactions) in unabashed defiance of Congress — often, but not often enough perhaps, to be reined in by the Courts as having overstepped his authority. Indeed, he had many actions set aside by 9-0 decisions of the Supreme Court, which contained a few Justices he had appointed!

        In other words, he set the stage by precedent for his successor to do exactly the same things, albeit in a different direction. Why be surprised now that another narcissistic, self-aggrandizing fool with no real experience preparing him for the job might follow his lead?

  8. Obama care was such a good idea, those who forced it on us, exempted themselves from it!!

    1. Don’t get hung up on Obamacare. It is likely to be replaced by a single-payer system soon enough.

      1. Where are the votes in congress for single payer?

        1. In Arty’s delusional fantasies.

    2. Laugh but it’s a perverse feature.

      Here, politicians and the connected head to the USA for health care. They ain’t waiting in our lines that’s for sure.

      Like commies who kept the filet mignon for themselves.

      They fool idiots like Arthur on top because ‘greater good’.

  9. Obamacare is unconstitutional and the SCOTUS was wrong the first time.

    There is nothing in the constitution that allows for government to force Amerricans to buy products and services.

    1. Oh ye of little faith… hath thou not read the “Interstate Commerce Clause”? The “Elastic Clause”? I see a little sinner who needs re-education. Rational thoughts as these will lead you away from your one true God, Fedgov.

    2. please amend to add Federal. State governments have general police power, they can make you get whatever insurance they want. No one said Romneycare was unconstitutional in Massachusetts. And last i checked requiring every driver to insure their autos and related is fine and dandy at the state level.

  10. McSuderman has a sad.

  11. Aww, man! Who’s going to pay for my insurance now?

    1. You can get a Trump branded short term mini-med type policy for almost nothing. It covers almost nothing, but you can legitimately say that you have you some bonafide insurance.

      1. Student health insurance at Trump U?

      2. I got offered some cut rate insurance for over $6 per year. Last week. Other than doctor’s visits and generic scripts, it covered nothing until after I spent over $7k. So I’m going to stick with nothing instead of that bit of worthlessness.

        1. ‘$6k per year’.

  12. “the policy statements made as part of the original law don’t really matter, not anymore, because last year’s Congress told us quite clearly that they did believe the law could stand on its own without a mandate penalty. We don’t have to guess at the intent of the Congress that modified the law, because they told us quite clearly that they believed that the rest of the Affordable Care Act could stand in the absence of a tax penalty.”

    this is not correct, because they weren’t allowed to address the underlying act itself as a condition of reconciliation.

    1. Exactly. The only Congressional ‘speech’ that legally matters is the legislative sort.

      What they say means nothing, it only matters what they do.

      But this is Suderman floating the new ‘libertarian’ legal principle that Federal legislation means whatever future Congresses say it means.

  13. Wow, this is unsurprising. Except maybe to:
    https://reason.com/people/jonathan-adler/all

    Who co-wrote amicus brief in support of the defendants’ position, and against our fellow patriots in Texas.

    The 5th Cir. will rubber stamp this decision faster than you can say Smokey Robinson.

    But when it gets into the laps of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, they will have some tricky challenge to uphold this and stay consistent with severability precedent. Only question is whether it will be in the ’19 or ’20 term.

  14. This ruling won’t stand, because it’s a technicality and technicalities only matter for Republicans. However, it’s a good opportunity to draw attention back to Obama’s duplicity regarding whether the mandate was a tax.

    1. Reed O’Connor is around the same age as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and is/was a fellow fratboy at the The Federalist Society. Keep the faith! They will find some way to have their boy’s back. It might be tricky, but they can do it!

      1. The right-wingers need to expedite this litigation if they wish to be sure to resolve it before the Supreme Court is enlarged.

          1. AMEREXIT!

        1. Trump should enlarge it now, and appoint Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Ted Cruz.

          You and your Marxist moron friends won’t be able to get it enlarged a second time.

      1. You know who else was literally Hitler?

        1. reltiH?

        2. The Boys from Brazil?

        3. Hitler’s sister.

        4. Anradolph Lincler?

  15. We can all blame FDR for our current system of health insurance being coupled with job benefits, but all the really regulation and laws that came after that need to be pitched as well.

    Insurance costs too much, and government is the cause.

    1. ^^^THIS!!!!!

  16. It’s about time. As with most government programs, the stated name is usually the exact opposite of the effect it creates. The “affordable” care act made healthcare LESS affordable for the vast majority of individuals.

    The one and only thing the federal government is authorized to do under the constitution in regard to healthcare is to prevent the states from prohibiting the sale and use of insurance across state lines. This just happens to be the one and only thing the federal government has done to help lower the cost of healthcare. The more competition there is in any market, the better the service and the lower the cost. If we want to fix healthcare, this should be the FIRST thing we do … not the last.

    1. They’re not even addressing the cost of health care, just that of insurance.

  17. My monthly healthcare expenses tripled upon passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Many of my co-workers opted not to have healthcare. Thankfully I was able to find a new job that has always provided a generous healthcare plan.

    1. Ditto. Obama should be executed by the feds for that alone.

  18. So a bunch of state AGs who probably get healthcare provided in their benefits package want to take healthcare from those less fortunate. This is part of the problem and they might think different if their family did not have access to healthcare. Whatever they think healthcare is not going away as an issue. The 2018 midterm election proved this to be true. The ACA is a market place approach and if you don’t like that there is another option. That is Medicare-for-All. But thinking that people will just settle for no healthcare for their families is wrong and will not happen.

    1. Doesn’t matter of it’s legal for the government to do it. A lot of people want it, so to hell with principles!

      That seems like a good system. That will never result in undesirable effects

    2. The ACA is not a market place approach. It is a partially socialist approach. There is a third option besides Medicare-fo-all: a full free market.

      If you actually care about the less fortunate, eliminating ALL regulations regarding healthcare and health insurance will drop the price of both dramatically and will offer much better services. THAT’S the best way.

      1. Not according to all of the available evidence on planet earth, but that’s not where you people live, is it?

        1. Fuck off you lying Marxist piece of shit.

    3. “So a bunch of state AGs who probably get healthcare provided in their benefits package want to take healthcare from those less fortunate. This is part of the problem and they might think different if their family did not have access to healthcare.”

      Hey asshole, I LOST my coverage due to Obama’s commie plan. Now my only options are several times more expensive and inferior to the mediocre o,am I had before.

      So go fuck yourself with that outrage. Obama and anyone who supported this treasonous bullshit can go fuck themselves too, as far as I’m concerned.

      Those less fortunate can pay for their own shit.

  19. Republicans are scum. That is all.

    1. YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR!

      1. It was supported by people in white lab coats.

    2. And Democrats are assholes.

      Now, who’s left?

    3. Choke on Block Yomomma’s dick, faggot!

    4. Democrats are soulless things, not even human. Especially ‘Ordinary Person’.

  20. Wait. Does this article claim, not once, but twice, that congress thinks?
    Whodathunkit?

  21. Unfortunately the ruling will likely be overturned. History has shown that once freedom is lost the only way to get it back is through violent means. We will never see the law repealed only twisted versions that continue to infringe on freedom.

    1. That’s ridiculous. The Berlin Wall came down w/o violence.

      1. But not without a credible threat of violence. Is it “violence” to point a gun at someone and give him an order even if you don’t pull the trigger?

      2. Well, as long as you don’t count the 50 year long “cold war”.

  22. A court does its job! Its a FESTIVUS MIRACLE

    “It’s difficult to imagine that will happen, however, as the ruling is nearly certain to be appealed, and this particular case against the law has real weaknesses.”

    It only has real weaknesses if you believe the end result is more important than the rule of law.

    This is a STRONG case.

  23. Kavanaugh.

    First Planned Parenthood, now Obamacare.

    How will progressives get out of this one!?

    Will the suddenly march against PP and O’care because Kavanaugh? Stay tuned! People without principles do the darnedest things!

    1. How will progressives get out of this one!?

      They’ll sweep the 2020 elections and then expand the Supreme Court to create a progressive majority. Or at least that’s the plan.

      1. If someone then they should be overthrown.

        1. ‘If so,’

  24. “The ruling, while invalidating the law, didn’t immediately block enforcement of the ACA, a situation that could trigger widespread uncertainty in the near term. Some states could stop enforcing or administering the law, including Medicaid expansion, starting Jan. 1, when the elimination of the penalty takes effect.”

    —WSJ

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/fe…..544838743?

    Apart from the moral bankruptcy of the individual mandate, the worst part of the ACA was the expansion of Medicaid. If this helps us get rid of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion, that will be the best thing that could have happened to our healthcare system–and will strike a huge blow in the name of fiscal restraint.

    Any “libertarian” who opposes cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next ten years isn’t a real libertarian.

    1. Any “libertarian” who opposes cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next ten years isn’t remotely a libertarian.

      Amazing how many of them, given a chance to simply reduce the welfare state find reasons to not do so.

      Almost as if their idea if libertarian doesn’t actually involve liberty.

      1. I think the problem is they don’t want to admit that some not-well-off persons need to be cut off. I see a lot of times the assertion or at least the implication that our desired policies would cut off only fat cats.

        1. They don’t want to admit something, for sure.

          And yes, often times the asserted ‘benefits’ are of a Utilitarian sort.

          What they do not want to admit, nor do they fundamentally accept is that every person who is compelled to support these affronts to liberty is less well off because of them.

          Federal judges stand up to the government to ‘protect’ the ‘liberties’ of people seeking to break immigration law and Reason applauds.

          A Federal judge stand up to the government to end an insult to the liberty of every citizen and Reason is troubled.

    2. The Medicaid expansion is a big winner for Democrats and helped them win senate seats in NV and Trump’s best state WV. I can’t believe you would call Mitt Romney “morally bankrupt” for supporting the individual mandate but nothing surprises me coming from brain dead Deplorables.

      1. The individual mandate is morally bankrupt because it violates our moral obligation to respect each other’s agency in such a profound way.

        I don’t suppose you know anything about agency if you don’t even know about the ad hominem fallacy, but, suffice it to say, the ability to make choices (agency) is necessary in order for there to be morality. There can be no morality if there is no ability to choose other than what we’ve done. In fact, the obligation to respect other people’s right to make such choices for themselves is what we’re talking about when we talk about rights. Why are rape and theft wrong? It isn’t because Mitt Romney says so. It’s because we’re all morally obligated to respect each others’ right to make choices for ourselves, and rape and theft violate that right.

        While it may be possible to violate someone’s rights without doing so immorally–if and when our obligation to respect other people’s right to make choices for themselves overlaps and conflicts with someone’s obligation to respect our own rights–the individual mandate goes much further than that. The individual mandate presupposes and ignores our moral obligation to respect other people’s agency entirely. No trial. No jury of your peers. You’ve done nothing to violate anyone else’s rights with mens rea–the individual mandate ignores all of that.

        It doesn’t matter who I voted for or what Mitt Romney says about the individual mandate–it’s morally bankrupt for that reason anyway.

        1. Every point you’re making could be applied to property rights or any of the other social obligations you’re cool with.

          1. Wow, everybody, it looks like Tony may have learned something!

            Yeah, “property right” means you have the right to choose who uses something, how it’s used, when it’s used, etc., etc. Freedom of religion is the right to choose your own religion. Freedom of speech is the right to choose what you say. We’re all morally obligated to respect each other’s right to make choices for ourselves. Violating other people’s rights as in rape and theft is what we’re talking about when we talk about “crime”.

            The government violating our rights (which they’re only meant to protect) is what we’re talking about when we talk about “injustice”. In order to use the coercive power of government to force people to do things against their will, you’re supposed to convict them of a crime by a jury and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they violated someone’s rights with mens rea readily apparent. You’re not supposed to be able to force them to do something like eat broccoli or buy insurance unless they’ve been convicted of a crime at the very least.

            But, anyway, yeah, rights are the obligation to respect the agency of others, and property rights are no exception. Like all other rights, they arise as an aspect of our agency.

            1. morally obligated

              Shit in one hand and morally obligate in the other. You are legally obliged to respect property rights. That means taxes, government goons, courts, and all that jazz. Keep your morals off my body.

              If you can justify extracting taxes from me to uphold a regime of property rights, you have relinquished the argument that taxing and government doing things is inherently bad. So you have to justify the argument that not having social healthcare, like every other civilized place on earth, is good as a policy choice.

              1. False alarm.

                Tony hasn’t learned anything . . . again.

                1. There’s only so much one can learn about a stupid toddler political philosophy that amounts to “I get what I want because God says so, whereas you can fuck off and die.”

                  1. “I get what I want because God says so”

                    —-Tony

                    That’s what Tony thinks I wrote.

                    This is what I actually wrote:

                    “The ability to make choices (agency) is necessary in order for there to be morality. There can be no morality if there is no ability to choose other than what we’ve done. In fact, the obligation to respect other people’s right to make such choices for themselves is what we’re talking about when we talk about rights. Why are rape and theft wrong? It isn’t because Mitt Romney says so.”

                    —-Ken Shultz

                    When I say, “Tony is a fucking retard”, it isn’t an ad hominem attack in this context. It’s a syllogism.

                    1) Tony repeatedly fails at reading comprehension.

                    2) Tony does not learn from repeated past failures of facts or logic.

                    Within that context, it is not a fallacy to conclude that Tony is, in fact, a fucking retard (in the descriptive sense).

                    I defy anyone to argue otherwise.

                    1. “It isn’t because Mitt Romney says so.”

                      I might expand on that point.

                      Tony’s “logic” taken to its natural conclusion could ultimately be described as “Might makes right”, but it would be wrong to project anything like “logic” onto Tony’s emoting.

                      Having seen him go down this road in the past, Tony is not only incapable of rationalizing much of anything but also doesn’t care whether he’s wrong or right.

                      He’s a fucking retard.

                    2. Rape and theft are wrong because Mitt Romney thinks so, among others. What else might you be trying to argue? Is it not a mere assertion (God, or whomever, says so)?

                    3. Ken, I believe truer words have never been spoken. Well put.

                    4. I actually doubt he’s mentally retarded or being slow in this context. I think he’s propagandized and stubborn about maintaining that ignorance. It’s probably more an issue of curiosity and integrity than raw mental competence. That’s my best excuse for Tony though I might be projecting my evaluation of otherwise smart people I know who believe the same bs he does. There’s a major disconnect in even communicating with such people as they are incapable of understanding the basis of others’ arguments

  25. Eat a big fat ginormous bag of dicks Block Insane Yomomma, Dipshit Dave Weigel, Goth Fonzie Gillespie, Welchie Boy, and especially you Pete MacAdoodle Suderweigel!!!

  26. Unfortunately, you can’t opt out of the social obligations to health. You could refuse to get dragged to the ER when you have an uninsured cardiac arrest, but even burning down the house in which your corpse is rotting requires effort on the part of other people.

    What a nice world it would be if the problem we had to worry about is the excesses of social obligation. First, however, we must do away with the stupid cult of rugged individualism that has nothing to do with how humans live and everything to do with what some dumb Russian bitch wrote in books 9th graders read.

    1. “Unfortunately, you can’t opt out of the social obligations to health.”

      You’ve offered nothing of substance to support this.

      1. Yes I have. We can choose to have corpses rotting in the street, or we can choose to have social healthcare. Not having biohazards in our drinking water is rather a hallmark of civilization. I like civilization. Do you?

        1. Americans survived without the individual mandate for 219 years, but if it wasn’t for the individual mandate, you’d just die in the street?

          Aren’t you capable of taking care of yourself at all? Stray dogs can take care of themselves better than you? What are you, a tapeworm?

          Is it wrong to hope that tapeworms starve to death?

          1. The United States hardly tops the world in healthcare outcomes. Do you think progress should have stopped 219 years ago?

            When the free market provides a social need more efficiently than any other means, then I applaud the free market for that. The evidence shows that it does not do so with respect to healthcare. Those of us who aren’t fucking pig-ignorant cultists appreciate that.

            1. “We can choose to have corpses rotting in the street, or we can choose to have social healthcare.”

              The term “false dichotomy” means nothing to you because you’re a fucking retard.

        2. “We can choose to have corpses rotting in the street, or we can choose to have social healthcare”

          Another false progtarded binary choice.

    2. I’m sorry, but it’s not rugged individualists’ fault that your concept of social obligations is mostly vaginal in nature.

      1. As opposed to the dick-substitute nature of arguing that I have to pay the salaries of judges who will uphold your right to own as many firearms as you want.

        1. That’s exactly what a pussy would bitch about: “You big, strong, horrible men get guns but where’s my cheese no fair!”

          1. Try making a decent cheese plate with guns. And which is actually more frequently necessary in life?

              1. More than cheese?

                1. Without testosterone, you can’t have a dairy farm, and you can’t make cheese.

                  But if you want to see what you can squeeze out of your nipples, be my guest.

  27. probably should be stricken from the books.

    Probably?

    Libertarian must not mean what I usedta think it meant.

  28. No penalty. No harm. No standing.

  29. Well, let’s not get too excited. What is likely coming sometime after the 2020 election is Medicare for all. At least that is what the proponents will be calling it. What we are more likely headed for is Medicare Advantage for all. This is a government funded hmo managed by “our friends”, the insurance companies. It is growing in popularity with those currently eligible for Medicare. The logic is simple. The Ds, who will in all likelihood control Congress, can declare victory for providing healthcare to everybody. The Rs will declare victory for saving us from socialized medicine. Both political parties will avoid public scorn when taxes rise and care is rationed because the insurance companies, big pharma, and the burgeoning hospital groups will make wonderful scapegoats. That is the gambit. What a great country!

    1. Since the resources do not exist to provide state-of-the-art medical care to everyone from womb to grave, care is always rationed. There are just differing ways of doing that.

    2. Medicare is 65% short of the funds needed to pay promised benefits per the Government’s Trustee Report. That would fit Churchill’s description of socialism, the equal sharing of the misery.

      1. Even if unlimited funds are provided, that doesn’t guarantee the doctors, nurses, technicians, hospitals, clinics, and medical equipment will be available to do everything possible for everyone. No matter what the system is for paying for medical care, there will always be a method for saying “no” to people seeking treatments that are in short supply.

  30. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty

    consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to

    you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in

    addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this

    website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    http://www.geosalary.com

  31. No penalty for not buying insurance but still not allowed to buy insurance that doesn’t meet the governments definition of “essential” services. You now have a choice to buy nothing or far more insurance than most people need, to the benefit of the big insurance companies that love this law.
    I need the Obamcare tumor removed from my life.

  32. No penalty for not buying insurance but still not allowed to buy insurance that doesn’t meet the governments definition of “essential” services. You now have a choice to buy nothing or far more insurance than most people need, to the benefit of the big insurance companies that love this law.
    I need the Obamcare tumor removed from my life.

  33. Texas went federal judge shopping and found one that did what they wanted him to. The plaintiffs may not have had standing (no harm as penalty is now zero). The rest of the law is probably severable from the zero tax/penalty. The ruling did cause confusion during open enrollment which is a victory to anyone who doesn’t like the law.

  34. Peter Suderman obviously didn’t research the first Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. In that decision, Roberts IGNORED the fact that Obama and Congress interpreted the Obamacare payments as penalties for not obtaining issurance. Roberts, in order to make Obamacare constitutional in his eyes, ruled that it was a TAX; and he stated that it MUST be consider a TAX for the other elements in Obamacare to pass constitutional muster. So if the tax is removed, it is unconstitutional according to what Roberts stated in his first ruling. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional because the constitution specifically enumerates all the powers of the federal government, and power over health care is not mentioned. It also states that any federal powers not mentioned in the constitution (e.g. health care) are given to the states.

  35. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.