Donate Button
Follow us...

PERSPECTIVES

This is where we offer some of our thoughts and perspectives to you. We won't promise they're better than anyone else's. Or even right. But we'll at least provide interesting ways of looking at things.

Combined with the information we provide in the other parts of this site, we hope to encourage interesting and meaningful conversations about things that affect you.

WHY CONTRIBUTE WHEN EVERYTHING IS FREE?

We're glad we asked.

If you've read some of our stories thinking...
... You want everyone to understand this
... You want better policies
... You want better conversations
... You want more like this

Then we need you to contribute.

It costs money to publish News in FiVe, and contributions are our only source of funding.

So if this article helped your understanding, please consider a small donation to help us keep doing this and help us reach more people.

Even a dollar or three every so often makes a difference.

In return, we'll keep providing you the most relevant, understandable, and accessible news and information.

It's secure and takes only about a minute.

Thanks!

Click here to contribute

Calling BS on the latest anti-ObamaCare lawsuit

Date: 2019-May-09           Author: Barry Shatzman

Let's be clear from the start, the lawsuit to invalidate ObamaCare, and now the position of the Trump administration, is 100 percent poppycock.

In the lawsuit, the Republican-led plaintiff states argue that, because Congress eliminated the penalty for not having insurance, the entire national health care policy violates the Constitution.

If nothing else, the argument is extremely questionable technical gobbledygook.

Really Barry? Bringin' out the big words?

We've already mentioned the argument the Republican plaintiffs made that ObamaCare with no mandate is not what Congress intended, even though that's precisely what (the Republican-led) Congress enacted in 2017.

Poppycock not strong enough? Here's what the administration wrote. Maybe straight-up bullshit is more accurate...

But there is no longer a tax penalty; the monetary penalty for failing to comply with that requirement is now $0.... Thus, while the Supreme Court previously ... construed the statute as allowing covered individuals to choose between buying health insurance and paying a tax, now there is no choice because there is no tax to pay.

Did you catch that? They're saying that, because Congress took away the penalty for not being insured, you now don't have a choice about whether to be insured. You got a better word?

And now for a bizarre ironic twist

In spite of everything i just wrote, in practical terms, the Trump administration is 100 percent correct...

"As Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized, two sets of ACA provisions were explicitly premised on the existence of the individual mandate: the 'guaranteed issue' provisions, which prohibit insurers from denying coverage because of an individual's medical condition or history, and the 'community rating' provisions, which prohibit insurers from charging higher premiums because of an individual's medical condition or history (among other things). Congress concluded that the individual mandate would prevent people from taking advantage of these provisions, to the detriment of the health-insurance market, by declining to purchase health insurance until they get sick. Although the 2017 Congress eliminated the mandate's penalty while retaining the rest of the ACA, it left in place both the mandate itself and the 2010 Congress's findings that the mandate was essential to the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions..."

Well get a load of that... the administration actually is arguing that the mandate is a necessary part of ObamaCare - for the same reasons we explained years ago.

Which means i can't say this strongly enough... when congressional Republicans eliminated the mandate in 2017, it was a conscious and deliberate strategy to sabotage our health care policy.

It's like screwing a leg off a barstool and then saying the barstool needs to be trashed because it can't support you.

Neglecting the premise of public policy

Let's be real. ObamaCare is far from perfect, But regardless of its imperfections ... arguing this case on partisan and questionable technicalities ignores the fact that there are people who are alive today because ObamaCare has made it possible for them to get the health care they need.

If the administration wins this case, Trump, members of his administration, and many elected Republicans will be doing the happy dance with insurance and pharmaceutical companies who contribute to their campaigns. And they'll be doing it on the graves of those same people tomorrow.

In other words, it won't be just a barstool that's being screwed.

Angry enough?

                   Tell us if we goofed                                                  Copyright