Ruling to strike down health law puts GOP in a quandary

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one old man MSC, UT
    Dec. 16, 2018 10:04 a.m.

    I am still waiting for someone on the side rejoicing because the ACA has been declared "unconstitutional" to explain to all of us what the difference is between Mandatory Health Insurance and Mandatory Automobile Insurance.

    Why can we all be "forced" to buy auto insurance if we want to drive? Is it because of the obvious burdens we would place upon others if we harm them in an accident?

    Why is "forcing" us to pay for health insurance if we want to obtain medical care wrong given the FACT that by failing to have health insurance and then finding oneself unable to pay for our care -- and then relying on the hospitals to find a way to make other people pay for it -- any different than driving without insurance and thus leaving others to pay for our mistakes?

    I would really appreciate a well considered and thoughtful answer to that simple question.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Dec. 16, 2018 9:58 a.m.

    A conservative ideologically driven judge in Texas ruled the ACA (Obamacare if I dare whisper that name) as unConstitutional. Try as I might, I can't find much legal analysis that supports this decision. The accolades of his legal reasoning are political rather than based on firm mainstream Constitutional interpretations.

    The Texas Attorney General shopped this case to a sympathetic judge. This clearly is yet another in a long series of attacks on our healthcare system.

    Yet we have never seen nor heard what the alternative GOP plans might be. Frankly I don't know how the GOP gets away with the crime and won't do the time for the health care theft perpetrated on the country by conservatives.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 16, 2018 9:22 a.m.

    It's funny that Trump and company are promising a "new and improved" healthcare program since they don't have anything in the works.

    For 25 years Orrin Hatch has been telling us he has the best healthcare program around. The thing is, he wouldn't tell anyone what's in it, and wouldn't tell us when he would tell us what's in it. I suspect the current GOP is relying on the non-existent Hatch type program.

    Trump said he would cooperate with Dems on a healthcare program. Translation; "gimme the wall and I'll give a little healthcare to the peasants."

    "On the assumption that the Supreme Court upholds, we will get great, great health care for our people," President Donald Trump told reporters during a visit Saturday to Arlington National Cemetery. "We'll have to sit down with the Democrats to do it, but I'm sure they want to do it also."

    "Economist Gail Wilensky, said the state attorneys general from GOP strongholds who filed the lawsuit really weren't very considerate of their fellow Republicans."

    "The fact that they could cause their fellow Republicans harm did not seem to bother them"

    The funny thing is that Republicans that lose healthcare will still vote for Republicans.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 16, 2018 5:33 a.m.

    How do the actions of our local politicians impact this situation?

    Our Attorney General Sean Reyes was one of the GOP Attorney Generals pushing this law suit. Now he seems to be conspicuously silent.

    Please correct me if I am wrong didn’t our Republican Senator Hatch say two years ago that we have a plan to replace Obama Care. Where is it?
    Again silence.

  • wgirl Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 10:28 p.m.

    Before it was called Obamacare it was called Romney care. The plan originated from the conservative think tank “The Heritage Foundation.”

    Conservatives used to believe in personal responsibility. They knew that the more liberal solution was a single payer system - the “Medicare for All” being proposed now. They preferred a system where people purchased their own insurance. Romney made is work.

    The problem was that republicans vowed to oppose anything Obama tried to do. So when he chose the take romneycare nationwide they were stuck...now they had to hate it, even though it was their idea.

    Funny how they are thrilled about the court ruling but are keeping it in place. It is as if they are afraid to really own it.

    Maybe they don’t want to face the millions of people that will loose coverage?

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 15, 2018 8:45 p.m.

    As we are seeing and will see, Obamacare is done! Failed miserably by ruling of a federal judge! This will end at the SCOTUS! Good riddance!

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Dec. 15, 2018 6:31 p.m.

    GOP = ALL about the RICH!

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 5:59 p.m.

    Thid.... those people who don't have insurance by choice.... they still cost every single person who uses the system money. When they go to the emergency room, and don't have insurance, the hospital eats a lot of their cost. That expense doesn't disappear into the a magic money tree.... it gets added into the base prices everyone who does have insurance pays. Those expenses are then passed on to those who actually pay for insurance. Hospitals have to by law provide stabilizing services regardless of the persons ability to pay.

    The idea that somehow these expenses disappear into the system and don't end up coming out of everyone who uses those facilities pockets is just fantasy. Trades people are some of the worst abusers of that part of the system.

    And when something really major happens, and the bills get really big, results in people filling for bankruptcy. Over 60 percent of bankruptcies in this country are over medical bills. And yes, we all play the bill for those forced into using the courts for relief.

    It's not a matter of how much it cost to provide health care services, but out of what pocket it comes.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 4:56 p.m.

    I don’t know how everyone’s deductible and premiums are rising. Mine have not gone have not gone up at all and I doubt it is because my employer is picking up the tab for me.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 4:45 p.m.

    Thid wrote: Healthy Americans do not usually purchase health insurance meaning millions will have no health insurance BY CHOICE!

    But Thid you are ignoring the FACT that when of those people get sick, costs of their care are passed to the rest of us when they show up at an ER or other place and then cannot pay their bills.

    That's exactly the same reasons that ALL states require us to not only purchase auto insurance if we are going to drive -- and why we are also required to purchase insurance that covers accidents involving uninsured drivers.

    We are all FORCED to buy auto insurance if we wan't to drive. Why don't we hear anyone objecting to auto insurance?

    I'd really appreciate a good logical answer to that question.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 4:23 p.m.

    @Gil:

    A few facts to consider:

    1. The AP does, in fact, sometimes identify judges as liberal, just as it sometimes identifies other judges as conservative. Check it out.

    2. Judge Sullivan (the Texas federal judge who ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional) is a conservative and a member of the Federalist Society. I don't imagine he's ashamed of either fact. The AP is simply giving you some helpful contextual information.

    3. The AP is consistently rated among the "least biased" news sources. (See the mediabiasfactcheck website, for example.) If you want to call out a news organization for bias (either liberal or conservative), there are many far more biased outlets. The AP isn't one of them.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 12:50 p.m.

    @Gil
    "It's funny that the AP never calls out "liberal" federal judges when they block a government action."
    I seem to remember multiple times the AP, the conservative media and right wing pundits have referred to the 9th circuit court in San Francisco as a liberal bench. We often only hear and see what we have conditioned ourselves for.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 15, 2018 11:39 a.m.

    Hugh: They are numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) not mine and they certainly do add up. Healthy Americans do not usually purchase health insurance meaning millions will have no health insurance BY CHOICE! Those who get free/subsided healthcare are costing taxpayers, according the CBO, $50K per person. I don't know about you but I can find a lot of healthcare insurance that doesn't cost anywhere near $50K. Only in Obamacare! Why do taxpayers put up with such blatant waste?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 11:15 a.m.

    Maybe this will mean that the Democrats will actually legislate instead of saying that "we'll know what's in it once we pass it." And them ram it through with no input from anyone but themselves.

    That means it goes through the committee process, the amending process, congressional hearings, and the whole shebang. Pass an actual law, if they can, that actually has some give and take before passage.

    Frankly, the Gubment needs to get totally out of the health care industry except for protecting those most in need, as a temporary safety net, and the Veterans. And they do a very poor job of taking care of our vets.

    Frankly, I think Obama Care was written by the big insurers. I never had a deductible before Obama Care, now I have a big one. My coverage has actually gotten worse because of Obama Care and I pay way more out of pocket which means my health care costs have gone up, a lot in the last 7 or 8 years which includes increased premiums.

    Good for this judge. Maybe it will get to the Supremes and they will dump it and make Congress do their job.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 11:05 a.m.

    @Thid Barker
    "The Congressional Budget Office reports that the government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in a paltry $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare. "

    I tried to find the reference for this and eventually got to a January 2015 Breitbart piece. The title of which is:
    "ObamaCare: $2 Trillion In Spending, $643M In Taxes, Insurance For $50k a Head"

    So I took a look at a June 2015 report from CBO called: Budgetary and Economic Effects of Repealing the Affordable Care Act and it says this.

    "repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period."

    So it seems you were off by about 1.4 trillion.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 15, 2018 10:27 a.m.

    The Real Maverick: Imagine a person buys a home but for whatever reason, they do not buy fire insurance. Sure enough their house burns to the ground! They now demand the insurer cover their house for "pre-existing conditions" therefore forcing their neighbors to pay for their lack insurance responsibility with triple digit premium increases and impossible deductibles. Now millions of people have fire insurance that they can not use, pre-existing conditions or not! This is Obamacare! Is that fair or just? Really?

  • Gil Bates Mayfield, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 10:18 a.m.

    Did you catch that? Right in the first line. It reads, "A conservative federal judge."

    It's funny that the AP never calls out "liberal" federal judges when they block a government action.

    Caught you again, biased media. Convicted by your adjectives...again.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Dec. 15, 2018 10:17 a.m.

    re: Thid Barker - Victor, ID

    Your numbers don't add up, not even on this superficial level.
    What does this mean? >>The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in between 24 million and 27 million fewer Americans being uninsured.>a $50,000 price tag per person and will still leave between 29 million and 31 million nonelderly Americans without medical insurance. Imagine that, taxpayers!

  • The Real Maverick Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 9:54 a.m.

    So are repubs really cheering that 20 million people will now lose their health care? Are repubs really happy about people being denied now over pre-existing conditions? Apparently they learned nothing from this midterm beat down? Wow

    Guess we’ll have to continue to gut their part through elections until they learn.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 8:37 a.m.

    When the ACA was passed, supporters knew it would need to be altered, just like Medicare and Social Security have been.

    No legislation is perfect, and changes are needed throught time.

    This gives the incoming Democratic House something constructive to work on while the national distraction of investigating Trump's expanding ecosystem of illegal behavior moves forward.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 15, 2018 7:13 a.m.

    The Congressional Budget Office reports that the government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in a paltry $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare. The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in between 24 million and 27 million fewer Americans being uninsured – a $50,000 price tag per person and will still leave between 29 million and 31 million nonelderly Americans without medical insurance. Imagine that, taxpayers! For every person getting Obamacare health care YOU are paying $50K! Why oh why would any rational person defend Obamacare? What a magnificent failure! Classic government overreaching and under delivering with staggering costs and so very few benefiting! Please get this mess off our backs!

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Dec. 15, 2018 6:29 a.m.

    After Chief Justice Roberts did his exceedingly strange justification in finding the Obamacare law constitutional, it is refreshing to see the legislative change of the penalty (tax) cause the fall of this entire sloppily written and strangely enforced law. Not much doubt that the whole costly morass will be found unconstitutional when it again reaches SCOTUS. One hopes that out of the ensuing disarray will come some rational healthcare alternatives by the states as the feds cannot agree on anything.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Dec. 15, 2018 6:09 a.m.

    You hated Obamacare? You won! Congratulations! This was, "the first order of business," of the President and the Republican Congress.

    Health care emergency? Don't have insurance? Don't call 911, call you're Republican Congressman. Republicans, now you own it, good luck. Now pay for it.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    Dec. 15, 2018 5:52 a.m.

    I don't understand why a replacement law isn't in works, now. Why wait for the court to decide if the current law - which both sides agrees has issues - should be replaced. It should be replaced now, period.

    I early retired in June. My health insurance bill is more much more than my house payment. Much more. Since I don't qualify for subsidized coverage I will spend somewhere around $40,000 on health care insurances for my family.

    Between now and when I can join medicare (about 10 years) - I will spend nearly a half million dollars on insurance because earlier my wife had cancer. I am lucky I can pay this, or self insure. But many can't - and that is the crime in all this. My wife cancer was caught because of early detection. If you can't afford preventive care, outcomes are much different.

    Congress needs to start fixing the system now. No one should die because corporatized medicine is too expensive.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2018 9:49 p.m.

    "Numerous high-ranking Republican lawmakers have said they did not intend to also strike down popular provisions such as protection for people with pre-existing medical conditions when they repealed the ACA's fines for people who can afford coverage but remain uninsured."

    "Along with the requirement to have health insurance, the administration said the parts of the law that should go included:
    — The requirement that insurers must take all applicants for comprehensive coverage regardless of prior health history, including pre-existing conditions."

    They must think voters don't pay attention to the things they do.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2018 9:41 p.m.

    If pulling the mandate out of the ACA makes for an unconstitutional situation (by making the penalty 0), then the law that should be affected is the one that law that created an unconstitutional situation, and that is the GOP tax cut bill which is where the removal of the mandate came from. Of course, a reasonable judge would sever the broken part from the rest of it so no, I'm not saying the entire tax cut bill should be thrown out (not this way at least, I certainly support repealing it).