world

Much at stake as Supreme Court weighs future of 'Obamacare'

14 Comments
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

The argument against the law from the Trump administration and conservative states is that the 10-year-old statute was rendered unconstitutional in its entirety when Congress dialed down to zero a penalty on those remaining uninsured

Thats a weak-sauce argument given I’m the penalty is what conservatives initially claimed was unconstitutional.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Do Americans care about what is legally correct or do we want to do what is necessary for moral reasons and world-wide competition reasons?

I don't expect the SCOTUS to decide either way, but that is really the question that Americans need to answer at the polls. Too bad nobody is asking us.

The ACA is unconstitutional. There's nothing in the US Constitution about health care, therefore it is left to the states and if not the states, to the individual. Federal income tax on individuals is also unconstitutional. The states are required to pay, but not the individuals. There are many things that have become part of Federal law which should never have been allowed. Don't get me started about Social Security. Legally, it is wrong, but morally and for the poorer 30% of Americans, it is necessary. The right way to get all these unconstitutional needs addressed would have been through Amendments.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

No it’s not. Not being mentioned in the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional. Otherwise the CDC, NASA, CIA, NSA, basically every aspect of our modern lives would be unconstitutional, which they clearly are not.

Perhaps you missed the part where the Constitution says that Congress shall make laws it sees fit? They can be interpreted by SCOTUS. But this insane version of originalism is laughable on its face.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The ACA is unconstitutional. There's nothing in the US Constitution about health care

I’ll stop you there.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And the idea that the individual mandate, which SCOTUS has already ruled is a legal tax, that tax now zeroed out, is not separable from the rest of the law, which is the legal standard for striking it down, beggars belief.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Graham DeShazo

And the idea that the individual mandate, which SCOTUS has already ruled is a legal tax, that tax now zeroed out, is not separable from the rest of the law, which is the legal standard for striking it down, beggars belief.

I don-t really want to wade in the American healthcare debate, but it beggars belief that this "mandate" was mischaracterized as a "tax" by one of the judges for political reasons. Obviously, this punishment for not participating in a scheme is not a tax.

In the event, the concept for the Obamacare seems to be borrowed from the Dutch system. But as far as I can see they took all the bad parts from the Dutch system and ignored the good ones (for example the Dutch system allows for completely free competition, with regional limitations, and the punishment for not participating is not simply grabbed but put into an escrow acccount, which is accessible to those who pay).

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

sorry should have been WITHOUT regional limitations

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Before Covid-19, about 27 million couldn't afford healthcare. With Covid-19 the numbers increased to 40 million with people losing their jobs and their healthcare too.

Trump didn't come up with any healthcare plan although in a recent TV interview claimed to have one.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The ACA is unconstitutional. There's nothing in the US Constitution about health care

Then maybe it’s time for another amendment.

It seems to me though that good health care would be included somewhere in ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.

If you’re not healthy you might well lose your life: you’re not at liberty to live the life you want to live: and it’s hard to be happy when you’re either ill or bankrupt. Or both.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Zappos, It wasn’t 1 justice: it was 5 which is more than 4. And thems the rules. You lost. sorry - not sorry.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

And my qualifications? I taught American history and American Government at the college level for 10 years.

Arguments that this law, while perhaps new SCOTUS will over-rule, are factious.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The ACA is unconstitutional. There's nothing in the US Constitution about health care, therefore it is left to the states and if not the states, to the individual.

By your logic, student loans are unconstitutional and so is privacy because neither are directly mentioned in the constitution. Unfortunately, that’s not how constitutionality is determined by SCOTUS.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It seems to me though that good health care would be included somewhere in ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.

That is the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.

That is the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

As a non-American, it's all the same to me. I don't need a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago in a world vastly different to today's to tell me how things should be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites