Why a Judge Ruled Obamacare
Unconstitutional, and What Policymakers Should Do Next, by Marie Fishpaw / John G. Malcolm 12/16/18,
Daily Signal.
A judge has declared Obamacare
unconstitutional—but the case is far from over.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a
George W. Bush appointee, granted a motion for summary judgment Friday in favor
of 20 states led by Texas that had filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the Affordable
Care Act.
Now that O’Connor has ruled, the losing
side is sure to appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and ultimately
the Supreme Court.
However, as the case continues to wind
its way through the legal system, it is imperative that policymakers pursue
real health care reform. Obamacare isn’t working for too many American families
and individuals slammed with high premiums and few choices. Rather than looking
for ways to keep Obamacare in place amid these legal challenges, lawmakers should
pursue real solutions.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against
American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The Judge’s Reasoning in Striking Down
Obamacare - As part of the last year’s Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act, Congress repealed the financial penalty associated with failing to
comply with the individual mandate, effective in 2019.
In 2012, in NFIB v. Sebelius, the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate by the
narrowest of margins when Chief Justice John Roberts, providing the deciding
vote, devised a novel theory construing the penalty associated with violating
the individual mandate as a tax that Congress has the power to levy under the
Constitution.
Texas argues that once the penalty is
reduced to $0, it can no longer be considered a legitimate tax, and that
therefore the individual mandate would no longer have a constitutional leg to
stand on.
Moreover, Texas argues, in upholding the
individual mandate, the Supreme Court appeared to rely on the argument that
Congress considered the individual mandate to be a central—indeed,
indispensable—component of Obamacare that is not “severable” from the rest of
its provisions, and that without it, the rest of the law should be invalidated.
A group of 17 states led by California
are defending the law, arguing that even a tax of $0 is still a tax, and that
it was never Congress’ intent to get rid of the rest of Obamacare when it
repealed the financial penalty associated with the individual mandates as part
of last year’s tax bill.
In granting the plaintiffs’ motion,
O’Connor stated, showing his agreement with Texas’ argument:
The [Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act] eliminated that [individual mandate] tax. The Supreme Court’s
reasoning in NFIB—buttressed by other binding precedent and plain text—thus
compels the conclusion that the individual mandate may no longer be upheld
under the tax power. And because the individual mandate continues to mandate
the purchase of health insurance, it remains unsustainable under the Interstate
Commerce Clause—as the Supreme Court already held.
Finally,
Congress stated many times unequivocally—through enacted text signed by the
president—that the individual mandate is “essential” to the ACA. And this
essentiality, the [Affordable Care Act’s] text makes clear, means the mandate
must work ‘together with the other provisions’ for the Act to function as
intended. All nine justices to review the [Affordable Care Act] acknowledged
this text and Congress’s manifest intent to establish the individual mandate as
the [Affordable Care Act’s] ‘essential’ provision. The current and previous
administrations have recognized that, too. Because rewriting the ACA without
its ‘essential’ feature is beyond the power of an Article III court, the Court
thus adheres to Congress’s textually expressed intent and binding Supreme Court
precedent to find the individual mandate is inseverable from the [Affordable
Care Act’s] remaining provisions.
What Should Be Next - But the legal fight aside, we need a
better health care solution than Obamacare. One of Obamacare’s core conceits
was that what (allegedly) worked in Massachusetts would also work on a national
scale. That hasn’t borne out.
Instead, Obamacare led to years of
increasing costs and decreasing choices. Premiums doubled in the first four
years of the program. Millions lost the coverage they used to have. Americans
found it harder to pick the right plan and doctor, as health plan choices
declined and provider networks narrowed. Frustrated providers are drowning in
red tape and increasingly feeling burned out. Meanwhile, taxpayers are on the
hook for the money needed to paper over Obamacare’s flawed structure.
Those who seem to benefit most from
Obamacare are big insurance companies that embraced the law and receive a
steady stream of taxpayer subsidies and politicians who made endless promises
to reform Obamacare but failed to deliver.
Real Solutions for Pre-Existing Conditions - Regardless of these facts, expect many
in Congress to call for immediate restoration of Obamacare in the name of
protecting the sick and people with pre-existing conditions.
Some on the left claim Congress must
protect Obamacare because only Obamacare allows Americans with pre-existing
conditions to get coverage. That’s an irresponsible, false dilemma and
Congress should reject it.
There are steps that states can take
right now to ensure people with pre-existing conditions are protected, even if
Obamacare ultimately goes away.
Congress should let states review their
health care regulations and pursue innovative ways to make coverage more
affordable and accessible to Americans—regardless of their income or medical
status. Every state legislature is about to go into session in early
2019, so this is both a desirable and possible approach.
Empower the
States - Congress
does have a role to play in helping families and individuals get the quality
private coverage they want, and helping health care professionals meet their
needs. Conservatives have a proposal to achieve this: the Health Care Choices
Proposal, which undoes Obamacare’s damage by letting states innovate.
Under Obamacare, insurance companies
receive taxpayer subsidies dollar for dollar as they raise prices. This
proposal does away with that flawed spending scheme.
Instead, it would convert existing
Obamacare spending into a grant that states would use to ensure chronically-ill
patients have access to the health coverage of their choice. Greater
flexibility and resources to the states means that all Americans, even those
who are chronically sick, would have access to more health plans at better
prices.
The Health Care Choices Proposal would
lower premiums up to an estimated 32 percent and ensure that everyone can
access a quality private coverage arrangement of their choice.
And everyone who gets a subsidy could
decide what coverage to use it for, including private or employer-sponsored
health insurance.
Individuals and families would be able
to decide what coverage arrangement works for them, and decide whether to work
directly with a doctor for primary care and buy catastrophic coverage, or get a
plan that covers more costs up front. The proposal would be especially helpful
to the working poor, who may want to have private coverage but lack the means
to pay for it.
For most people, this is a much better
option than what happens today: being pushed onto a government-controlled plan
a bureaucrat thinks is best for them.
This proposal would build on a
promising, emerging trend already happening in the states. When states have
been given even a little bit of freedom from Obamacare’s mandates, they’ve been
able to lower premiums using tools that ensure that the sick still retain
access to care.
Politicians have long promised to
replace Obamacare with solutions that help everyone. It’s time to deliver—no
matter which way the courts go.
Dear Readers: Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.
The Trump administration
has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy
recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within
the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.
Why? Because they are
determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives.
Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the
country.
President Donald Trump
needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces
within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by
becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment