Trump renews vow on pre-existing conditions after urging court to overturn ObamaCare

The individual mandate is not a tax. It unconstitutional and there is no constitutional way to fix Obamacare. The rest of this case is on automatic. Trump has nothing to do with it.

Steve, I am always looking for improvements to Health Care but this, as we learn that The administration on Thursday filed a legal brief to the Supreme Court asking that the ACA be invalidated, a move that would take away health insurance coverage for about 20 million people and make health care a chief issue a little over four months out from the presidential election.

Have you seen what Trump plans to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with after three years of Trump in office yet?

Ron, my understanding is this case won't be decided until October. Relax bro.

The Question to you Steve was: "Have you seen what Trump plans to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with after three years of Trump in office yet? YES OR NO.

It's up to Congress Ron.

In my opinion, Congress will allow the pain of health care to continue. They don't care.

So, you have not seen a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) now have you?

Steve, Why do you think is the reason why Trump acting like that, when he don�t have a replacement plan?

The ACA is unconstitutional. It should never have been rammed through on a strictly partisan basis. Don't expectbany sympathy from me Ron. At least that traitorous bastard McCain is out of the picture. Maybe Trump can whip Congress into action in his second term.

Come back to the question Steve. Steve, Why do you think is the reason why Trump is acting like that, when he don�t have a replacement plan?

As far as the ACA being unconstitutional, do you understand that The ACA is the LAW of this land?

Trump will sign anything reasonable and that means constitutional. The ACA never was [constitutional] and now you are reaping what you sowed. Not my problem Ron. Cry on somebody else's lap.

My question to you is: "Why do you think is the reason why Trump acting like that, when he don�t have a replacement plan?"

It is obvious, if you can't you can't find Trump's replacement health Care Plan anywhere, that means, Trump don't have a plan and he is willing to kick 1. 8.5 million American people off the rolls in times like this and you don't give a damn.

Now you said: "The ACA never was [constitutional]" THAT IS A LIE STEVE AND YOU KNOW IT!

With five votes to uphold the mandate in The Supreme Court decision, The ACA will continue to survive, and the Court did not need to consider the �severability� issue � that is, what other parts of the law would have to go if the mandate were unconstitutional.

At this point in time, Under current constitutional law, the federal health care law is clearly constitutional. It is not even a close question.

That's what I said Ron, it will be decided in October. All the crying in the world won't speed the process up.

The ACA is Under current constitutional law, the federal health care law is clearly constitutional NOW. It is not even a close question.

The brief argues that because the law's requirement to have health insurance was upheld in court as a tax in 2012, and Congress has since repealed the financial penalty for violating that requirement, in 2017, it is no longer a tax and therefore no longer constitutional.

That is just one argument but today I did some reach by asking this question: "How many people are covered by Obamacare?"

So far, we only have estimates for this question. Numerous sources point out that over 23 million people are currently covered under the ACA which is still in effect today Steve.

Until that law is stuck down, The ACA is still the LAW of the Land, due you get it?

And the individual mandate is still repealed and there still is no way to pay for pre-existing conditions.

Then how are the 23 million American people insured in that program getting medical assistance Steve?

The same way everything is paid for Ron. The Treasury prints more money and passes the buck on to our kids.

That is a good point, then that means that THE ACA is still the LAW of the Land, don't you get it?

I never said it wasn't the law. I said it has ALWAYS been unconstitutional. In fact Ron, not as a matter of any court ruling. The individual mandate was not a tax, notwithstanding the opinion of the court.

Now you are say wasn't the law.

The health care law is constitutional

This essay for our symposium is by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law. Previously, Dean Chemerinsky was a professor at Duke Law School, University of Southern California Law School, and DePaul College of Law. He is the author of seven books and over 100 law review articles. Frequently, Dean Chemerinsky argues appellate cases, including in the United States Supreme Court.

Under current constitutional law, the federal health care law is clearly constitutional. It is not even a close question. The key issue is whether Congress has the authority to require that all individuals either purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Opponents contend that the minimum coverage provision is unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of Congress's powers. But this is constitutional both under Congress's authority to regulate commerce among the states and as an exercise of congressional power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

It is important to note that none of the challengers to the health care law are claiming that the individual mandate is unconstitutional as infringing personal freedom. Conservative rhetoric attacking the law often is phrased in these terms and the underlying basis for objection is likely that people should have the right to be uninsured without paying a penalty if they wish. But under post-1937 constitutional law, economic and social welfare legislation is upheld so long as it is reasonable. Rarely has any law been struck down as failing this "rational basis"� test, and not even the law's fiercest critics challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate on this basis.
Thus, the litigation has focused entirely on whether Congress has the authority to require that individuals either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. First, this is constitutional under Congress's power, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states. Since 1995, the Court has used a three-part test for determining whether a federal law is constitutional under the commerce power. Under the third prong of this test, Congress may regulate economic activity which taken cumulatively across the country has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

There are thus two questions in assessing whether the individual mandate is within the scope of the commerce power. First, is Congress regulating economic activity? Second, if so, looked at in the aggregate, is there a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

The second question then becomes whether taken cumulatively the law has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Health-related spending was $2.5 trillion in 2009, or 17.6% of the national economy. In the last case to deal with the scope of Congress's commerce clause power, Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, the Court held that Congress constitutionally could criminally prohibit and punish cultivation and possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal medicinal use. If Congress has the power to prevent Angela Raich from growing a small amount of marijuana to offset the ill effects of chemotherapy, then surely it has the authority to regulate a two-trillion-dollar industry. Moreover, Gonzales v. Raich reaffirmed that Congress need only have a rational basis for believing that it is regulating economic activity which has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and certainly at least that exists here.

Although the discussions and decisions about the constitutionality of health care have focused primarily on the Commerce Clause, there is an alternative basis for upholding the law: Congress's broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

Those who do not obtain health insurance must pay a penalty, calculated as a percentage of income and administered through the tax collection system. The penalty applies only to those who have income exceeding an amount specified by statute and is calculated solely based on this income. In 2016, for example, the payment by a taxpayer who does not obtain coverage will never be greater than either 2.5% of the taxpayer's household income above the income tax filing threshold or a flat dollar amount ranging from $695 to $2085, depending on family size.
Simply put, the federal health care law imposes a tax on those who do not purchase insurance to generate revenue that the federal government can use to address the significant cost of providing health care for taxpayers without adequate insurance.

The only objection is that the law does not specifically use the word "tax."� But as the Supreme Court often has recognized, labels do not determine constitutionality. Whether the law uses the word "tax"� is irrelevant in assessing whether this is an action which fits within the scope of Congress's very broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare. Besides, the legislative history is clear that members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle saw this as a tax and used the words "tax"� and "penalty"� interchangeably.

Thus, the health care law should be upheld as a valid exercise of congressional power under either the commerce power or the taxing and spending power. If this issue had not become so intensely partisan, it would be easy to predict the result in the Supreme Court. But even taking the politics into account, I predict that the Court will uphold the law by an eight-to-one margin, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the sole dissenter.

The other Justices will recognize that the constitutional clock can't and shouldn't be set back to pre-1937 law which narrowly circumscribed Congress's powers and that the Justices should not substitute their judgment about the wisdom of the law for the choices made by the democratically elected president and members of Congress.

I'll never forget that BROKEN PROMISE, "no individual mandate without a public option". Your ACA is garbage.

Write all the crap you want Ron, it won't change a thing. The Supreme Court doesn't care what either of us thinks. Nine justices will make their decision and I will surely not let you forget when they rule MY way.

Shame on you Steve, What I posted is the FACTS and all you got at this point is just You�re hurt feelings. (Laughter...)

There's an easy way to cover pre-existing conditions Ron, constitutionally. It's called Medicare-for-all.

Talk to TRUIMP and the republicans about that Steve.

I wouldn't vote for it. It would have been better to not do anything about covering pre-existing conditions. Now people think it's their right. Of course it isn't.

Where is your plan?

or

Do you think it is OK to cancel Health Care for ten's of Millions of American's Steve?

That's what I said Ron: people think it's a right. I don't have any control over the states that are suing, and my Democrat representative and senator are feckless. I certainly will give Trump a second term. We'll all have to wait and see how things shake out.

I asked you about your plan Steve and Do you think it is OK to cancel Health Care for ten's of Millions of American's Steve?

I agree with the states. Without the Individual Mandate the whole ACA collapses and is not tenable. We had reform and that bastard McCain ****ed us.

1. I asked you about your plan Steve, do you have one?

2. Do you think it is OK to cancel Health Care for ten's of Millions of American's with out a replacement plan, Steve?

Remember Ron, Trump made healthcare his top priority when he assumed office. Democrats chanted "RESIST!" Boo hoo.

The ACA is the biggest screwup of all time.

Do you think for one moment that you came close to answering these two question.

1. I asked you about your plan Steve, do you have one?

2. Do you think it is OK to cancel Health Care for ten's of Millions of American's with out a replacement plan, Steve?