Obamacare

The Trump Administration Now Wants All of Obamacare Struck Down

This is selective enforcement of the law for political purposes.

|

Jay Mallin/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The Trump administration has changed its tune on a major health care lawsuit: It now supports striking down the entire Affordable Care Act.

It's a major development that is almost certain to have significant political consequences, even if the legal arguments behind the case remain shaky.

The suit in question begins with the 2017 tax law, which eliminated the health law's individual mandate but left the rest of it in place. A group of red state attorneys general follow up in court by arguing that, because the law was designed to function as a seamless whole, eliminating one major component requires the elimination of the entire rest of the law.

The Trump administration then responded by making the decision not defend the law's pre-existing conditions rules—although it still supported the Medicaid expansion, the subsidies for private coverage on the exchanges, and the rest of the law. It was an unusual decision, because the executive branch almost always defends duly passed laws where possible.

Last December, a Texas judge ruled in favor of the red state AGs, declaring that Obamacare was unconstitutional in its entirety. That ruling was met with heavy criticism, including from some Obamacare critics: The ruling attempted to use statements of congressional intent associated with the original passage of the law in order to invalidate the law as it stands now—essentially ignoring congressional changes, which constitute clear signals of intent, that have happened since.

But last night, the Trump administration, in a one-page filing, said that it now believes the Texas ruling should be affirmed—meaning that the executive branch's position is now that the entire law should be struck down.

The legal argument driving the case remains weak: In post at the Volokh Conspiracy (which is hosted by Reason) Case Western University Law Professor Jonathan Adler, who helped develop an earlier court challenge to the health care law, writes that the decision is "astounding," and that it adopts "a highly strained and implausible approach to severability with little grounding or precedent."

I am no fan of Obamacare, and I was critical of the Obama administration when it went beyond the bounds of the law to implement it. Indeed, that's why I find this new development worrying.

By all appearances, the Trump administration is taking a political position for political purposes, ignoring the strongest legal arguments in the process. It is a selective approach to enforcing the law, in which the executive branch has simply declined to defend a statute it doesn't like that was passed under a rival administration. That decision could have significant implications for future administrations from either party, and they would not be good: Administrations should not be in the business of picking and choosing which laws to enforce or defend.

It remains likely that the case will eventually fail in court. But in the meantime, it will almost certainly have political consequences for Trump and his fellow Republicans.

Arguably the single most effective argument Democrats had in last year's midterms was that they would preserve Obamacare and its preexisting conditions rules. That is was exit polls indicate, and it is also what House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) told fellow House Republicans behind closed doors earlier this year. Heading into next year's election, Democrats will almost certainly attempt to capitalize on the Trump administration's decision not to defend the rest of the law, including the Medicaid expansion that provides health coverage for millions and the subsidies for middle class people buying private insurance on the ACA's exchanges. (Even before last night's filing, Democrats signaled they would make Obamacare a major campaign theme.)

Finally, the filing is further evidence that Republicans have no meaningful, widely shared health care vision of their own: The Trump administration is now saying it supports the legal equivalent of repeal without replace. This wouldn't fix the nation's health care system so much as return it to the pre-Obamacare status quo, which was broken in different ways.

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.

135 responses to “The Trump Administration Now Wants All of Obamacare Struck Down

  1. This is selective enforcement of the law for political purposes.

    Oh, is this a bad thing now? Cause Reason sure liked selective enforcement for political purposes when Obama created DACA.

    1. Maybe someone can explain to Suderman that decriminalization is selective enforcement of law.

      1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here ======?? http://www.finestylereview.com

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

    3. What was REASON’s reaction to the 0blama administration refusing to defend DOMA?
      A law not even passed by a rival party’s administration, but by the previous demoncrap one.
      We also have the state of California, in the person of its AG at the time – Kamela Harris – refusing to defend the vote of the people when Proposition 8 passed.
      Recent history is littered with elected officials making choices about which laws to enforce. Maybe with the guidance of courts, who also ignore the clear intent of legislators and create their own “case laws”.

    4. Apparently Suderman is clueless about the severance clause. It was argued in passing Obamacare that the law could not survive without the mandate. Now we are in the strange place where you are not mandated to buy insurance but if you do it must be the policy with the coverages mandated by Obamacare.

      Kill this freedom stealing law anyway you can and throw Roberts tortured legal opinion the trash where it belongs.

    5. Apparently Suderman is clueless about the severance clause. It was argued in passing Obamacare that the law could not survive without the mandate. Now we are in the strange place where you are not mandated to buy insurance but if you do it must be the policy with the coverages mandated by Obamacare.

      Kill this freedom stealing law anyway you can and throw Roberts tortured legal opinion the trash where it belongs.

    6. Apparently Suderman is clueless about the severance clause. It was argued in passing Obamacare that the law could not survive without the mandate. Now we are in the strange place where you are not mandated to buy insurance but if you do it must be the policy with the coverages mandated by Obamacare.

      Kill this freedom stealing law anyway you can and throw Roberts tortured legal opinion the trash where it belongs.

  2. I am no fan of Obamacare.

    Lying sack of shit. If there’s even a tiny grain of truth to this, it’s because you want government-run only health care and private insurance banned, like all left-wing assholes.

    1. Universal health care is inevitable, in part because right-wingers are such impotent, irrelevant losers.

      1. Hasn’t anyone killed you yet, Reviled Arthur?

  3. What’s wrong with selective enforcement?

    1. Congress passes the laws and the Executive Branch enforces the laws.

      The Executive Branch gets to decide how to enforce the laws if Congress does not spell out specifics for the Executive Branch to follow.

      Trump now finds ObamaCare unconstitutional and undefensable in courts. Obama got to decide what he wanted his Administration to defend and trump gets to decide the same thing.

      Elections have consequences.

      1. *indefensible

  4. The libertarian case for defending unconstitutional laws and massive government programs.

    The Atlantic isn’t hiring, Suderman – save us the auditions.

    1. I love pointers on these issues from authoritarian losers who champion dopey walls and statist womb management, cheer for tariffs, and demand big-government micromanagement of ladyparts clinics.

      Carry on, clingers. But only so far as your betters permit, which is not going to be very far.

      1. So killing babies after delivery is now statist womb management? You really want to be first in line for hell!

  5. The law was “deemed and passed” and then reconstrued as a penaltax.

    Let’s not pretend the constitution has any bearing on this particular debate.

    1. 100% correct. Roberts tortured interpretation required changing/rewriting that very term that was in the law.

  6. The EPA throws lawsuits by environmental groups so they are ‘forced’ to accept more power.

    Does The Atlantic Reason care?

  7. I’d love to see Obamacare repealed, but ends don’t justify means. The Republicans had a chance to repeal this law when they controlled the entire government and they failed.

    1. ….because they DIDN’T control the entire government to the point where they could?

      So they’re doing it Democrat style. Chopping it to pieces like an inconvenient human parasite at 9.5 months in the courts.

    2. “but ends don’t justify means”

      They did getting it passed so I see no problem getting it struck down that way too. You’re just mouthing a platitude at this point.

    3. McCain (RINO) voted against the repeal.

  8. “Finally, the filing is further evidence that Republicans have no meaningful, widely shared health care vision of their own”

    How did OBL hijack a writer’s account? Explain to me again why it is required that government have a “vision” for the US healthcare market, much less one that is “meaningful” or “widely shared”. What even are those nonsense qualifiers?

    1. Yeah, I’ve never got this.

      Why does Reason DEMAND the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT have some large, overarching plan for health care? Isn’t “We don’t have nor need a plan” the proper response?

      1. Well, if you won’t go to the Vox, Reason is going to bring the Vox to you.

      2. MacAdoodle is one of the biggest lying shitbags you’ll ever see.

        He neither wants nor believes in a free market for health care. He can’t wait until his fellow lefties make private health insurance illegal!

    2. By randomly junking parts of the ACA, Republicans aren’t actually deregulating the provisioning of health care and/or health insurance. Health care remains subject to a massive number of intrusive regulations at both the state and federal level, as well as continuing to involve literally hundreds of billions of dollars of federal and state spending. Genuine deregulation of the health care and health insurance markets would require a “meaningful, widely shared health care vision” to help bring a free market system into effect.

      1. No, it doesn’t. That’s the thing about “free markets”. You don’t have to bring them into effect. You get out of the way and they just happen all on their own.

    3. the filing is further evidence that Republicans have no meaningful, widely shared health care vision of their own

      This line is perfectly accurate. You’re talking about returning to a free market system, which is not a notion that has found widespread support among Republican politicians.

      Libertarians have a meaningful, widely shared (among libertarians) vision for healthcare.

      We’ve collectively memory-holed the fact that ObamaCare was modeled on RomneyCare, which came out of the Heritage Foundation. This whole clusterfuck has been a bi-partisan affair from the get-go, and just saying “REPEAL!” is not a plan – it’s partisan hackery that ignores both parties’ participation in creating this fiasco.

      1. Not the old “0blamocare was a Heritage Foundation idea” again.
        You probably think the RNC started the Steele dossier, too.
        It’s not that our liberal friends don’t know anything, it is just that so much of what they know isn’t true.

  9. Given enough monkeys typing at a keyboard, eventually one will write Hamlet. I’m curious how many monkeys it took to make this strained argument. Obviously, it wasn’t made by somebody who took a minute or two to think about the argument they were making, correct?

    To be sure, an expression often said in this new age of Reason magazine, it is difficult to make a libertarian argument why the state has the constitutional right to force people at gun point to buy a product they don’t wish for, but here we are. An article written by a talented monkey. Well, a monkey at any rate.

    1. Why do you hate monkeys?

  10. Congress knows enough to put a severability clause in laws.
    Congress considered a severability clause for Obama care, and chose to omit it so that it would more politically difficult to contest.
    Congress continually touted the fact that the law had to act as a whole.
    They guessed wrong. If any part is void, the entire law is void.
    Deal with it.

    For your consideration; if they can mandate purchase of health insurance, they can mandate purchase of anything and everything. For instance, instead of bailing out the auto industry, they can pass a law that everyone with a car over 4 years old has to buy a new car, and it must be 75% American parts. That is not legally different than Obamacare.

    1. Don’t give Suderman any “free market” (hey, people get to choose WHICH car, amiright?) ideas.

      They can also make you personally sponsor a refugee with this argument.

  11. I can not believe that the Republicans want health care up as an issue in 2020. Medicare for All has its problems, but if the alternative is no health care it will win.

    1. Going back to pre-Obamacare isn’t “no healthcare” – it is dropping a bunch of mandates that made healthcare more expensive

      1. Healthcare was an issue in 2008 and it helped President Obama win. Your looking back to the pre ACA days with rose colored glasses. That was not the case for people with preexisting conditions or the working poor. If this lawsuit succeeds it will bury the ACA and give birth to Medicare for All.

        1. Your looking back to the pre ACA days with rose colored glasses.

          That’s why the proper place to look is pre-Medicare days.

      2. The medicaid expansion gave free healthcare to something like 17 million new people that didn’t have it before. That’s a shitload of people with a huge incentive to come out and vote to keep their free goodies.

        1. The medicaid expansion promised something like 17 million new people that someone else would pay for their medical care (TANSTAAFL).

          You’re not wrong that those 17 million will continue to be in favor of that.

      3. As one directly affected, prior to ACA (as an early retiree), I was content to pay $1000 a month for a state run HIPAA plan. I would use that (despite having $0 in medical expenses some years). The only reason for the insurance was huge cost-shifting to cover their losses for Medicare patients, and especially Medicaid. Having assets but no insurance is an invitation to have your entire net worth looted.

        The problem with repealing ACA is you can’t return to the status quo. The state run HIPAA plans were abandoned. Insurance companies merged with each other. Risk based underwriting departments were liquidated. Health care providers bought up private practices and hospitals. Employers switched from participating in group plans to self insuring where Blue Cross administers the plan and negotiates discounts but takes no actuarial risk. They operate as a paper shuffler on a cost plus basis. Employers reduce cost by not hiring people with perceived health risks or terminate people who get sick and dump them on Medicaid.

        The above is not inconsistent with libertarian principles, but advocating a dog eat dog health care system while leaving Medicare and Medicaid intact will just speed up Medicare for all.

    2. “but if the alternative is no health care”

      THEY’RE OUTLAWING MONEY AND DOCTORS!!!

      THEY’RE EVEN OUTLAWING BAND-AIDS!!!

      1. Good idea; after all, there might be 0.001% of the population allergic to the adhesive, and it might save a child’s life.
        So yes, definitely outlaw band-aids.

        As a beneficial side effect, the congress could no longer put a band-aid on bad legislation.

    3. Do I need to link to the definition of false dichotomy?

  12. The ACA was passed by methods corrupting of parliamentary procedure. Kept in place by corruption of understandings of statutory and constitutional provisions. This is attacking a weakness deliberately built into the law by its authors because they thought it gave them a momentary political advantage, yet somehow playing upon it is unprecedented and astounding? Why? The entire ACA is unprecedented and astounding. Killing it by similar means as it was created is karma.

  13. Good to see the mask finally slipping on Suderman’s feelings about Obamacare.

    1. It slipped during the effort to repeal as he was vehemently against it without some comprehensive plan to replace it..

      1. It slipped long before that.

      2. It slipped long before that.

  14. It really is true: TDS is so all-consuming that if Trump adopts a position the sufferer previously held, the sufferer will reverse their stance on that issue.

    1. TDS just makes the masks come off. Suderman’s only objection to what is going on in Venezuela is that the capitalist swine aren’t giving them enough money.

    2. Did you hear him twisting in wind during yesterday’s podcast? Ugh.

    3. “It really is true: TDS is so all-consuming that if Trump adopts a position the sufferer previously held, the sufferer will reverse their stance on that issue.”

      There’s TDS that works either way. For example, you can hear people who thought Presidential infidelity was a Big Deal when it was Clinton who was doing it, suddenly deciding that Presidential infidelity is None of Their Business, and none of yours, either, out of respect for the first lady.

      1. There is a lot of TDS going around.

        1. You finally admitted it. That’s a fIrst step to overcoming your TDS.

      2. Clinton’s infidelity was a big deal. Once we lost that fight and the new rules were put in place, it isn’t a big deal any more. One set of rules for everyone.

        1. It was also over two decades ago. The world changes a bit in such a time frame, but certain types of people can’t grasp that.

          For the record, I never cared that he got his dick sucked, and was only mildly perturbed that he openly lied about it.

          “Yeah I got a hummer so fucking what?”

          1. The “fucking what” was that he lied to avoid it being proven that he had a pattern of trying to get subordinate women to suck his dick, when he was being sued by one, who objected to it being shoved in her face.
            The only “sex” in the actions against Slick Willy was the part of it contained in “sexual harassment” – against the law, then and now.

      3. First… trump wasnt getting a blowjob from a White House intern to then go on and lie about it during a sexual harassment hearing after being accused of rape.

        Second… are you fucking ignorant to the other actual clintin scandals? Rose law firm billing. Chinese investors. Nuke tech given to NK. Etc etc. The blow job was th least of the legal issues he had.

        1. “Second… are you fucking ignorant to the other actual clintin scandals? Rose law firm billing. Chinese investors. Nuke tech given to NK. Etc etc. The blow job was th least of the legal issues he had.”

          It’s what he got impeached over, and the one thing where some actual wrongdoing was proven and he got punishment.

          1. The deputy attorney general went to jail as a result of the Starr investigations and the White House counsel “committed suicide” to avoid his own imprisonment.

            1. I forget, did the final autopsy report say how many times he shot himself?

    4. Suderman has ALWAYS been a progressive. Nothing new here.

      1. +1

  15. I am personally in favor of anything that enhances human liberty, even if it is the courts who do so and not the legislature. In fact that’s often one job of the courts, to stomp down on the legislature when they decide to infringe upon fundamental liberty. So I hope this lawsuit succeeds.

    But that is the libertarian position, not the Republican position. It is a bit rich to see Republicans bleat about RULE OF LAW and then engage in this transparently partisan stunt to undermine a duly created law that they don’t like. If Obama was wrong for picking and choosing which laws he chose to enforce and which laws he chose to ignore, how is this any different?

    And Suderman’s final point bears consideration. It’s the libertarian position to get government out of health care, but that is clearly not the Republican position. I don’t see them voting to repeal Medicare anytime soon. They couldn’t even repeal the hated Obamacare when they had the chance. So since the Republican position is not the libertarian position, what exactly is the Republican position? They DON’T have a coherent vision of what the government’s involvement in health care ought to be, other than “the pre-Obamacare status quo” which had its own problems, left unacknowledged. If Republicans think that this will stave off calls for single-payer health care from Democrats, they are fooling themselves.

    1. What, like it’s Suderman’s job, or our job, to hammer out a compromise Republicans can get behind?

      1. No, it isn’t. But he makes a valid point nonetheless. If Republicans don’t put forward some idea of how they want government to be involved in health care, it will make the Democrats’ idea more palatable since they at least have a plan, even if it’s a bad one.

        1. “government imposed solutions always trump any other option”

          Said no libertarian or individualist ever.

          1. Absolutely said any libertarian or individualist with even a microscopic degree of familiarity with the US electorate. If you want a free market health care system, you need to (a) explain how you’re going to get there and (b) convince if not an outright majority then at least a large politically-motivated minority of the electorate that such a system will deliver some combination of services that are better/cheaper than a government-run system.

            1. Funny how “libertarians” conveniently toggle between pragmatic and pure in order to save their welfare state.

        2. Not so. In politics being anti- is as effective as being pro-, since things are voted up/down, not multiple choice. Frequently being specific is cement shoes in politics.

          People have been in favor of “health care” for generations, but they’re against any way to have it.

    2. Old people are living longer & vote reliably, & plenty of them are Republican, so of course Medicare ain’t going away any time soon. Other people, not so much. That’s how democracy works. Medicare has acted largely as it was meant to: as a bulwark vs. socialized med. I’ve got mine, let’s make sure others don’t get theirs too, or they’ll sink the boat. Divide & conquer.

      1. I’ve got mine, let’s make sure others don’t get theirs too, or they’ll sink the boat. Divide & conquer.

        Yeah that sounds pretty accurate. Preserve the status quo which locks in benefits for certain people, then yell at the newcomers that YOU CAN’T HAVE ANY OF THIS. That strikes quite a lot of people as unfair and simply pulling the ladder up from behind after they have successfully climbed up it.

        1. Yes, it does strike people as unfair as they cry all the way to the bank.

        2. Yes Jeffy, Our position is that it is better to stop a bad idea from spreading rather than spread it to everyone.

          “Unfair”, a word banned from my house when raising my children because it means whatever you want it to mean. Coming from you, the perennial child, it seems so appropriate.

          1. Our position is that it is better to stop a bad idea from spreading rather than spread it to everyone.

            “Our”? Do you speak for all Republicans now?

            And Republicans DON’T view government involvement in health care as a bad idea, *in principle*, at least as far as their actions are concerned. They continue to endorse all manners of government involvement in health care, Medicare being the most notable example. So Republicans’ ACTUAL position appears to be, “We think Medicare is a good idea, but we don’t want YOU to have it, only seniors”. Please explain the rationale behind that position.

            1. “We think Medicare is a good idea, but we don’t want YOU to have it, only seniors”. Please explain the rationale behind that position.
              The rationale is that government can barely afford to pay for it, for people, who have contributed to it for their entire working life. Letting everyone have it will drive it, and the nation, either into bankruptcy or to massive tax hikes ON EVERYONE, not just the 50% who pay more than the ones called “payroll taxes”.
              P.S. Medicare ISN’T single payer, it has premiums that need to be paid, it doesn’t pay the whole cost and it doesn’t cover all medical procedures.
              What the commies are calling Medicare for all is really Medicaid for all, but that doesn’t sound as good.

        3. If they proposed a law such that some identifiable class of people who’d be easy to organize & to exclude others from could literally shake others down on the street, it’d sell very well. Just consider that painting we were shown here yesterday of the miners who did that, murdered the victims, & loved every minute of it.

    3. Like the way we have no chance to repeal (in this or other countries) anti-discrimination laws vs. private biz broadly, but at least we have the chance to prevent more categories from being accepted in the log-rolling oppressed-minority tent, so take what you can get. If you need to take advantage of animus vs. those groups, fine.

      Or like how the general scheme of prohibiting recreational drugs is still in place, but now we’ve managed to get pot alongside booze on the acceptable side. Because the wall is still in place, you’d object to those escaping over it?

    4. Your first sentence is a fucking lie and you know it

      1. Oh look it’s Jesse the liar and pusher of narratives.

        Why don’t you tell us all again how I was cheering for Mueller to indict Trump, when I did no such thing.
        Why don’t you tell us all again how I was demanding the state force bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings, when I did no such thing.

        Stop lying and start arguing in good faith,.

    5. So you argument is that because we have Medicare we must accept the ACA? Phew

      1. My argument is that Republicans TALK like libertarians when it comes to health care (“get government out!!!”) but in reality they are not. So perhaps it’s time for Republicans to stop trying to have it both ways. If they want to continue to support a government role in health care, then maybe they should come up with some operating theory or rationale for what that role should be. Right now their operating theory just looks like “preserve the status quo”.

  16. Is Mr. Suderman concern trolling or what?

  17. You know, if Congress didn’t include severability clauses — and, by most accounts, this was intentional — how is it the COURT’S job to decide that they REALLY meant to do so?

    1. The argument is that Congress, by its own actions in 2017, already ‘severed’ the mandate from the rest of ObamaCare by their actions. So the law is severable at least de facto.

      1. And the counter argument is that, in 2017 since they did not add in a severability clause, there still is no severability.

        If the 2017 Congress wanted severability for what remained then they should have added a severability clause. They did not, thereby making their intentions black letter plain.

        1. You don’t look at the intentions unless the text of the statute is ambiguous.

          If they put a comma in the wrong place in the criminal code, and they don’t catch it before they vote on it and it passes, did they INTEND to alter the entire criminal code? Should I pitch my defense on that claim? They won’t let me try my non-religiously-based demonic-possession defense…

          1. “You don’t look at the intentions unless the text of the statute is ambiguous.”

            Holy Shit that is stupid.

            Every time we read anything we ‘look at intentions.’ That is the whole point of writing or any other form of communication – to convey intentions. Unambiguous text makes intention clear. That is an axiom. Ambiguous text is that where intention is unclear.

            Should a court confront such ambiguity in poorly written law then they have two choices, to excise the ambiguous matter if the other portions of the statute are both clear and clearly severable according to the statute; otherwise the law must be declared invalid and unenforceable.

            Then the legislature has the option of re-writing the law to make their intention(s) clear.

            1. Courts have no business trying to divine intent where ambiguity exists. That, at best, is a form of guessing, or worse represents the judiciary usurping the role of the legislature.

      2. The argument is that Congress, by its own actions in 2017, already ‘severed’ the mandate from the rest of ObamaCare by their actions. So the law is severable at least de facto.

        No, they simply removed the legal fiction that it was Constitutional and allowed another suit to kill it since too many Republicans are pussies.

      3. So your entire argument is anything written by congress is constitutional. De facto.

  18. Remember back when Republicans would complain about activist judges and the people who’d go to them to get things they couldn’t get by passing them through Congress?

    1. Did Congress include a severability clause in the ACA?

      No?

      Doesn’t seem to be activist to say that a law Congress says cannot be split up without becoming invalid would be invalid if a part of it is invalid.

      But YMMV.

    2. Consodering that’s how it got upheld, your concern trolling about it rings pretty false.

    3. ObamaCare is unconstitutional. You dont need judges to tell you that. There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that gives government the power to force Americans to buy a product or service. None.

      Roberts is RINO and he declared that ObamaCare was a tax, thereby end-running that problem with Obamcare. Roberts failed to do his job and let ObamaCare fall flat for Congress to fix or forget about.

      The problem with the Lefty strategy to use courts and the Executive Branch to end-run the Constitution is that a President like Trump can use HIS pen and phone to get rid of ObamaCare.

      1. Its not a tax but somehow psycho Roberts says “you mean tax right”. And the 4 lib nutjob SCOTUS justices go along with anything independent of the constitution.

        Its not a tax. Its forcing you to buy a product from a private company.

        1. And if it was a tax, it’s a tax that originated in the Senate, making it unconstitutional anyway.

      2. “There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that gives government the power to force Americans to buy a product or service. None.”

        Nor is there such a thing in the ACA. This detail seems to have eluded you.

        1. And the IRS agrees with you, right?

        2. So, nobody has ever really had to pay $2,000 to the IRS for volunteering to not purchase health insurance via the ACA? Is that correct, Pollock?

      3. “The problem with the Lefty strategy to use courts and the Executive Branch to end-run the Constitution is that a President like Trump can use HIS pen and phone to get rid of ObamaCare.”

        So, you admit that you’re willing to use all the things that make lefties, lefties.

        You’re a lefty. QED.

        1. Poor Pollock spends more time over here now that he needs to hate on the Constitution.

        2. Which must make a reactionary given your new found respect for precedent.

    4. I hope they’ve finally wised up and decided to play the game like the Left.

      Justice means “our side wins”.

  19. Yea just trash it. The ACA sucks.

    1. Good campaign slogan. You have my vote.

  20. “Finally, the filing is further evidence that Republicans have no meaningful, widely shared health care vision of their own”

    How does this detract from the fact the ACA was poorly thought out na badly implemented and enormously unpopular with weak sign ups?

    So fricken what? Who says they have to have a ‘vision’?

    I thought this was a FREE MIND, FREE MARKET website. Why does Reason even bother asking for a political vision for something that the free market can take care of?

    In any event, health/healthcare is heavily regulated. I invested in a medical lab in Florida and was astonished at the amount of unseemly regulations and restrictions and licenses needed to run one – one in which I’m told Obama made still more onerous.

    1. Who says they have to have a ‘vision’?

      How about, the people who are endorsing a government role in health care? Which is, BOTH Democrats AND Republicans.

      Republicans are not libertarians on this issue.

    2. “I thought this was a FREE MIND, FREE MARKET website.”

      It was.

      FTFY
      Does the bold help?

  21. Let the Libertarians not forget:
    Obamacare was supposed to fix three ‘problems’ with healthcare and healthcare insurance.
    1. Healthcare was too expensive.
    2. Healthcare insurance was too expensive.
    3. A few people could not get insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
    The first could be addressed by market function if health care providers had to charge the same price to everyone, like (almost) all other businesses. That is, no ‘networks’.
    The second could be addressed by prohibiting third party purchasing of healthcare insurance. That is, no employer picking a policy that is not right for you, and then saying “take it or leave it”. No union thugs saying this is what you want because we get the biggest kick back from these guys.
    The third could be addressed by allowing health care, like life insurance, to offer reduced benefits for the first few years. If people want to go without, fine; but they bear the burden if they are wrong, not the taxpayer.

    The regulations in these solutions are required because the current fascist system cannot just be dropped, individuals will need time to learn how to consume on their own, and the medical and insurance companies need to again hire people who can think instead of blindly follow government ‘suggestions’.

    1. One can always safely ignore the Left’s rationalizations for their power grabs. They certainly do.

      The goal of Obamacare was the same as the goal of any action by the Left: more power for the Left.

  22. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  23. There is not one smidgen of authorization for this activity in the constitution. We have a healthcare market, not a system. Federal intervention into the marketplace does not make it a system, it just makes it a mess.

  24. Well consider, SCOTUS generally upholds the concept of severability in law. Did so strongly in a 2012 OK case on arbitration, aka contract law. Then in a rare exception SCOTUS did NOT do so with PACA. The hook for exclusion of the general principal was that it was a taxing matter with deference afforded as to Congress’s role in such matters.

    Now we have a circuit case that uses the ground laid down by SCOTUS itself that invalidates all of it as Congress itself removed the tax provisions enblanc. Sorry folks can’t have it both ways.

    On a practical note. More people LOST insurance coverage in moving to PACA than those that did not have insurance coverage but acquired it thru the act. ‘The damage this can do….’ is but a red herring.

  25. My health insurance was cheaper and better under the old rules…

    1. As was everybody’s.

      Furthermore, thanks to HIPAA, fewer than 1 million American citizens were involuntarily uninsured “way back then”.

  26. The only thing worse than the Democrats’ democratic socialism is Trump crapitalism.

    1. “The only thing worse than the Democrats’ democratic socialism is Trump crapitalism.”

      The only thing worse than that is idiot victims of TDS posting ‘clever’ new words.

  27. I am in favor of using unconstitutional means to eliminate unconstitutional laws. Who’s with me?!?

  28. “It is a selective approach to enforcing the law, in which the executive branch has simply declined to defend a statute it doesn’t like that was passed under a rival administration. That decision could have significant implications for future administrations from either party, and they would not be good: Administrations should not be in the business of picking and choosing which laws to enforce or defend.”

    The Left has been in that business for decades.

    It’s about time the Right fought back *in kind*.

    The Right understands you have the right and the moral duty to shoot back at those who shoot at you. But they fail to consistently apply the principle when guns are not directly and immediately involved.

    The fundamental moral mistake of the Right, for a century, is mistaking complicity in one way rules as supporting the rules, instead of betraying them.

    One way ceasefire is surrender
    One way rule of law is subjection
    One way civility is subservience

  29. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  30. “Finally, the filing is further evidence that Republicans have no meaningful, widely shared health care vision of their own: The Trump administration is now saying it supports the legal equivalent of repeal without replace. This wouldn’t fix the nation’s health care system so much as return it to the pre-Obamacare status quo, which was broken in different ways.”

    Did an allegedly libertarian publication really publish that?

  31. Put Obamacare and the Republican health care plan, assuming there ever is one, on a ballot and let the people decide. Put “neither of the above” on the ballot, even. For something that involves almost 20% of GDP, direct democracy is appropriate.

  32. “Administrations should not be in the business of picking and choosing which laws to enforce or defend.”

    This is too strongly stated. Picking and choose which laws to enforce and prosecute is the primary role of the executive branch. Prosecutors have decisions to make on which cases they bring and don’t bring all of the time, even if only implicitly.

    Not enforcing laws against fornication is a good thing. Not enforcing laws against sodomy are a good thing. Not enforcing marijuana laws in states with legal weed is a good thing. etc. etc. etc.

  33. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $72/hr on the . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21863 just working on the for a few hours. Read more on this site

  34. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $72/hr on the . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21863 just working on the for a few hours. Read more on this site

  35. Sarah. if you, thought Douglas`s blurb is unimaginable… I just received Dodge after I been earnin $8657 this-last/5 weeks and even more than 10/k this past-month. it’s definitly the best-work Ive had. I began this six months/ago and almost straight away began to make more than $87, per hour. I follow this website,,

  36. what Esther said I am stunned that a single mom able to earn $4321 in one month on the . have you read this website

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.