ACA ruling

[tyler2016]

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/677036593/as-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional-democrats-seethe-republicans-stay-mum

Any lawyers here care to explain what this means?

[DreamFIRE]

There's a discussion about this ruling in this thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg2230651/#msg2230651

[Bucksandreds]

It means nothing. If it gets that far, the Supreme Court already ruled (John Roberts decisive vote) that the ACA is a tax. A conservative judge ruled that a 0% tax is not a tax. There are plenty of taxes that for many equal 0% rates but are still technically taxes. This is a right wing activist judge that made themselves look foolish.

[sol]

More specifically, I think the argument is that "by repealing the tax we've made the law financially untenable, so the whole law must be unconstitutional."

Which is kind of funny in today's political climate.  Financial viability isn't exactly a priority for modern legislation.  Since when does constitutionality depend on congress balancing the budget?

Republicans tried to break the health insurance market by increasing prices, and may have succeeded.  That doesn't make subsidized insurance illegal.

[maizefolk]

As others have said, this goes to the appeals court, and then the supreme court. Assuming this decision and whatever the appeals court decides are both stayed pending appeal, then nothing happens until the Supreme Court rules.

Essentially this means that we're rolling the dice on whether or not John Roberts is willing to vote to save the ACA a second time (last time his decision was based on the mandate being a tax though he didn't think it was constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, so this time the decision for him would seem to boil down to whether he agrees or disagrees with the argument that a $0 tax is still a tax), and that Ruth Bader Ginsberg (85) and Stephen Breyer (80) stay in good health and remain able to vote by the time the supreme court makes a decision.

As long as all three of those things happen (stay pending appeal, Roberts votes with the democratic appointees a second time, democratic appointees stay healthy), then this shouldn't have a direct impact on anyone's life. If any one of those things doesn't happen, things could get rather ugly rather fast.

[Bucksandreds]

As others have said, this goes to the appeals court, and then the supreme court. Assuming this decision and whatever the appeals court decides are both stayed pending appeal, then nothing happens until the Supreme Court rules.

Essentially this means that we're rolling the dice on whether or not John Roberts is willing to vote to save the ACA a second time (last time his decision was based on the mandate being a tax though he didn't think it was constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, so this time the decision for him would seem to boil down to whether he agrees or disagrees with the argument that a $0 tax is still a tax), and that Ruth Bader Ginsberg (85) and Stephen Breyer (80) stay in good health and remain able to vote by the time the supreme court makes a decision.

As long as all three of those things happen (stay pending appeal, Roberts votes with the democratic appointees a second time, democratic appointees stay healthy), then this shouldn't have a direct impact on anyone's life. If any one of those things doesn't happen, things could get rather ugly rather fast.

As sick as this is, the best thing for a fan of universal health care might just be a conservative court switching the Supreme courts ruling to unconstitutionally. You’d see a massive vote towards the left in the next election. I’d prefer ACA in place and still a massive vote for the left as it wouldn’t involve suffering for thousands of Americans.

[use2betrix]

As others have said, this goes to the appeals court, and then the supreme court. Assuming this decision and whatever the appeals court decides are both stayed pending appeal, then nothing happens until the Supreme Court rules.

Essentially this means that we're rolling the dice on whether or not John Roberts is willing to vote to save the ACA a second time (last time his decision was based on the mandate being a tax though he didn't think it was constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, so this time the decision for him would seem to boil down to whether he agrees or disagrees with the argument that a $0 tax is still a tax), and that Ruth Bader Ginsberg (85) and Stephen Breyer (80) stay in good health and remain able to vote by the time the supreme court makes a decision.

As long as all three of those things happen (stay pending appeal, Roberts votes with the democratic appointees a second time, democratic appointees stay healthy), then this shouldn't have a direct impact on anyone's life. If any one of those things doesn't happen, things could get rather ugly rather fast.

As sick as this is, the best thing for a fan of universal health care might just be a conservative court switching the Supreme courts ruling to unconstitutionally. You’d see a massive vote towards the left in the next election. I’d prefer ACA in place and still a massive vote for the left as it wouldn’t involve suffering for thousands of Americans.

Except for all the people that aren’t getting subsidies that are getting completely screwed over by it. In Texas I can’t even buy a PPO plan for any amount of money privately. They don’t exist. So when I take several month sabbaticals I have zero coverage except life threatening conditions because of the garbage HMO plans.

Glad I work my ass off 500+ hours of overtime most years for some shitty healthcare plan so that the people working part time are covered, though.

The hard worker in me is pisses. Oh well, the eventual early FIRE guy will reap full benefits of those working hard while I slack off I suppose. At least I will know I worked hard many years contributing to those benefits.

[sol]

In Texas I can’t even buy a PPO plan for any amount of money privately. They don’t exist.

Do you blame the ACA for that?

Remember that the ACA only subsidizes private insurance companies.  Insurers decide what they want to sell in each state, just like they did before the ACA.

[use2betrix]

In Texas I can’t even buy a PPO plan for any amount of money privately. They don’t exist.

Do you blame the ACA for that?

Remember that the ACA only subsidizes private insurance companies.  Insurers decide what they want to sell in each state, just like they did before the ACA.

Yes - I do blame the ACA for that. ACA requires insurance companies to provide so much coverage in their plans at even the most entry level that they can’t afford to provide PPO plans anymore, because providing PPO’s isn’t a mandate. Common logic would tell me if they could profit off them, they would sell them.

Even worse, since catastrophic plans don’t meet ACA requirements, instead of buying a cheap catastrophic plan which would provide me the EXACT same coverages out of state as the shitty HMO plan, I can’t purchase one without a fine at the end of the year.

Yes - this is all caused by the ACA, quite obvious because before the ACA, the PPO plans were readily available, as were catastrophic plans without fines.

I’m not rich by forum standard by any means, however it’s rather ridiculous that my young healthy wife and I can’t purchase a catastrophic plan without a fine. Even with a $10k deductible, I could save that pretty easily in one month if needed.

[sol]

Yes - I do blame the ACA for that. ACA requires insurance companies to provide so much coverage in their plans at even the most entry level that they can’t afford to provide PPO plans anymore, because providing PPO’s isn’t a mandate. Common logic would tell me if they could profit off them, they would sell them.

It seems a little unfair to me to blame the ACA for business decision made by private insurers.  PPOs lose money, so insurers don't offer them.  That's not the ACA's fault.

You might as well be angry at the ACA because you can't get unlimited healthcare for $1 per month.  The ACA doesn't make that plan illegal, it's just the insurers don't offer that product at that price.  Too bad for you.  You don't get to buy whatever you want at whatever price you want.  You have to pay market rates.

In this case, the ACA made good insurance available to more people, and so lots of them left PPO plans behind in favor of better options.  This is a triumph of the free market.  Hooray!  But as a consequence, those old PPO plans don't have enough healthy (low utiliziation) people on them to be profitable, and so they are slowly getting phased out by the insurers.  Are you really upset that you can no longer profit from other people overpaying for insurance?  Doesn't that seem a little selfish?

Even worse, since catastrophic plans don’t meet ACA requirements,

That's not true either.  There are lots of ACA plans that offer coverage with deductible over $10k per person.  Is that not catastrophic enough for you?  You want something even more catastrophic than that?  Sorry, you have to buy what the private marketplace offers, not whatever you want at whatever price you want.

[use2betrix]

Yes - I do blame the ACA for that. ACA requires insurance companies to provide so much coverage in their plans at even the most entry level that they can’t afford to provide PPO plans anymore, because providing PPO’s isn’t a mandate. Common logic would tell me if they could profit off them, they would sell them.

It seems a little unfair to me to blame the ACA for business decision made by private insurers.  PPOs lose money, so insurers don't offer them.  That's not the ACA's fault.

You might as well be angry at the ACA because you can't get unlimited healthcare for $1 per month.  The ACA doesn't make that plan illegal, it's just the insurers don't offer that product at that price.  Too bad for you.  You don't get to buy whatever you want at whatever price you want.  You have to pay market rates.

In this case, the ACA made good insurance available to more people, and so lots of them left PPO plans behind in favor of better options.  This is a triumph of the free market.  Hooray!  But as a consequence, those old PPO plans don't have enough healthy (low utiliziation) people on them to be profitable, and so they are slowly getting phased out by the insurers.  Are you really upset that you can no longer profit from other people overpaying for insurance?  Doesn't that seem a little selfish?

Even worse, since catastrophic plans don’t meet ACA requirements,

That's not true either.  There are lots of ACA plans that offer coverage with deductible over $10k per person.  Is that not catastrophic enough for you?  You want something even more catastrophic than that?  Sorry, you have to buy what the private marketplace offers, not whatever you want at whatever price you want.

So if the government decided to put 100% tariff on automobiles, so half the companies quit making auto’s and unemployed people were given free auto’s, and people who worked for a living all of a suddenly had to pay twice as much, the automakers would be to blame?

Odd you blame the health insurance providers for what they provide. The ACA mandates a very large chunk of what they provide. Not sure how the insurers are to be blamed for that..

Good logic. Heaven forbid that your beloved ACA isn’t optimal for every person in every situation.

[EnjoyIt]

...In this case, the ACA made good insurance available to more people....,

The ACA did not make good insurance available to more people.  It made some sort of insurance available to more people.  Big difference. It also made healthcare much more difficult to afford by the middle class.

[partdopy]

Yes - I do blame the ACA for that. ACA requires insurance companies to provide so much coverage in their plans at even the most entry level that they can’t afford to provide PPO plans anymore, because providing PPO’s isn’t a mandate. Common logic would tell me if they could profit off them, they would sell them.

It seems a little unfair to me to blame the ACA for business decision made by private insurers.  PPOs lose money, so insurers don't offer them.  That's not the ACA's fault.

You might as well be angry at the ACA because you can't get unlimited healthcare for $1 per month.  The ACA doesn't make that plan illegal, it's just the insurers don't offer that product at that price.  Too bad for you.  You don't get to buy whatever you want at whatever price you want.  You have to pay market rates.

In this case, the ACA made good insurance available to more people, and so lots of them left PPO plans behind in favor of better options.  This is a triumph of the free market.  Hooray!  But as a consequence, those old PPO plans don't have enough healthy (low utiliziation) people on them to be profitable, and so they are slowly getting phased out by the insurers.  Are you really upset that you can no longer profit from other people overpaying for insurance?  Doesn't that seem a little selfish?

Even worse, since catastrophic plans don’t meet ACA requirements,

That's not true either.  There are lots of ACA plans that offer coverage with deductible over $10k per person.  Is that not catastrophic enough for you?  You want something even more catastrophic than that?  Sorry, you have to buy what the private marketplace offers, not whatever you want at whatever price you want.

Not arguing for or against the ACA here, but it seems very disingenuous to equate what use2betrix is complaining about to a business decision.  With just a quick glance it may appear to be a business decision, and yes, it's motives are profit/loss, however it is a decision forced by government policy.

If the government outlawed cheeseburgers, would you call McDonald's switching to chicken patties a business decision?  I think not, although it would clearly be motivated by profit/loss since selling cheeseburgers is outlaws and no longer profitable.

[sol]

If the government outlawed cheeseburgers, would you call McDonald's switching to chicken patties a business decision?  I think not, although it would clearly be motivated by profit/loss since selling cheeseburgers is outlaws and no longer profitable.

The ACA didn't outlaw PPO plans.  A better analogy in this case would be if government offered subsidies to chicken farmers because chicken is healthier for you than beef, and so consumers started choosing the cheaper and healthier chicken patties, and then McDonalds stopped carrying cheeseburgers because not enough people were buying them. 

That's totally a business decision, motivated by consumer preferences, which are motivated by subsidies.  No one's rights have been infringed in this hypothetical sandwich situation.  The constitution has not been violated.  You can still buy cheeseburgers somewhere else, you just have to pay more for the privilege.  Private corporations have not been forced to offer you unprofitable sandwiches, individual consumers have not been forced to buy chicken patties, and angry beefeaters who are upset about their difficulties finding reasonably priced artery-clogging cheeseburgers can go suck a lemon. 

Let me repeat myself: you are not entitled to buy any product you want at any price you want.  Anyone who complains that they cannot find the product they desire at the price they desire has to realize that they are part of a marketplace which responds to consumer preferences to make a profit.  Sometimes the things we want to buy are not being sold by profit-seeking corporations at the prices we want to pay.  Get over it.  Trying to scapegoat "the government" for marketplace decisions probably isn't helpful.

[maizefolk]

The ACA didn't outlaw PPO plans.  A better analogy in this case would be if government offered subsidies to chicken farmers because chicken is healthier for you than beef, and so consumers started choosing the cheaper and healthier chicken patties, and then McDonalds stopped carrying cheeseburgers because not enough people were buying them. 

I disagree with this analogy. The issue the original poster was talking about isn't subsidies. (As far as I know you can get ACA subsidies for plans offered through the exchange regardless of whether they are PPOs or HMOs, correct?) Rather what has happened is that the ACA changed the services which have to be provided with every insurance plan, which increased the price of insurance.

Now I happen to think that it is a very good thing that the government mandated that, for example, your health insurance cannot come with a lifetime cap on benefits, and if you get sick your health insurance company cannot go looking back through your health records to find retroactive reasons to deny you coverage after you've been paying premiums for years. But both of those changes did increase the cost of providing health insurance significantly.

So the analogy would still be more accurate if it was: The government mandates that every meal sold by restaurants has to come with 16 oz of fresh broccoli. Because broccoli is expensive relative to what is normally in fast food and fast food consumers are price sensitive, McDonald's cannot raise the price of a big mac high enough to cover the per unit cost of the broccoli and still make a profit, so they stop offering that, and only offer chicken sandwiches.

McDonald's actions are motivated by trying to maximize profit/minimize loss, but the root cause isn't economics, it was a change in the regulatory environment.

No one's rights have been infringed in this hypothetical sandwich situation.  The constitution has not been violated.

I agree with this statement, but that still doesn't make the change a purely business decision. It's a direct result of changes in the rules for what kind of insurance plans can and cannot be offered. (Which, again, doesn't mean I think those changes are bad, just that they are were regulatory decisions, not business decisions.)

[bacchi]

I agree with this statement, but that still doesn't make the change a purely business decision. It's a direct result of changes in the rules for what kind of insurance plans can and cannot be offered. (Which, again, doesn't mean I think those changes are bad, just that they are were regulatory decisions, not business decisions.)

The loss of PPOs in Texas didn't happen with the advent of the ACA as Texas had PPO plans under the ACA. Apparently not this year but it has in the past.

Since the ACA hasn't changed, except for the loss of the mandate, why do insurance companies in Texas no longer offer them? It wasn't strictly the ACA regulations on what kind of plans can and cannot be offered. Something else changed since then.

[maizefolk]

That's a good point, but I'd argue it takes insurance companies a while to figure out what types of plans are and aren't profitable once the set of rules and assumptions they were operating under changed so dramatically. 

It's essentially the same thing that has been driving the significant increases in premiums in many states since introductions. Insurance companies are figuring out how many people are actually signing up for the plans and how much and which types of medical services those folks require. You make your best guess, you offer the plans, you see what happens. Then with an extra year's worth of data (more like 6 months actually given when you have to submit proposals for rate changes or to change which plans you are offering) you change both prices and which plans you offer.

But those changes in plans available and pricing produces a new set changes in who does or doesn't sign up for insurance, and go again (especially since changes in pricing also effect changes in the size of the subsidy payments available from year to year). Given how much the prices of insurance and which plans are offered in which states continue to change each year, it would seem to me that the insurance companies haven't found a new stable equilibrium under the new legal/regulatory system yet.

[sherr]

It's essentially the same thing that has been driving the significant increases in premiums in many states since introductions. Insurance companies are figuring out how many people are actually signing up for the plans and how much and which types of medical services those folks require. You make your best guess, you offer the plans, you see what happens.

Well, let's not forget that the rate increases have also been intentionally driven up by Republican sabotage in a variety of ways. Like, I don't know, repealing the individual mandate, defunding the risk-sharing insurer subsidies, and introducing substantial political risk about what the marketplace will look like next year just before (and continuing after) the insurance companies have had to decide on rates.

Republicans: "This thing is bad."
Republicans: [break it]
Republicans: "See I told you so, vote for me!"

[iris lily]

As others have said, this goes to the appeals court, and then the supreme court. Assuming this decision and whatever the appeals court decides are both stayed pending appeal, then nothing happens until the Supreme Court rules.

Essentially this means that we're rolling the dice on whether or not John Roberts is willing to vote to save the ACA a second time (last time his decision was based on the mandate being a tax though he didn't think it was constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, so this time the decision for him would seem to boil down to whether he agrees or disagrees with the argument that a $0 tax is still a tax), and that Ruth Bader Ginsberg (85) and Stephen Breyer (80) stay in good health and remain able to vote by the time the supreme court makes a decision.

As long as all three of those things happen (stay pending appeal, Roberts votes with the democratic appointees a second time, democratic appointees stay healthy), then this shouldn't have a direct impact on anyone's life. If any one of those things doesn't happen, things could get rather ugly rather fast.

As sick as this is, the best thing for a fan of universal health care might just be a conservative court switching the Supreme courts ruling to unconstitutionally. You’d see a massive vote towards the left in the next election. I’d prefer ACA in place and still a massive vote for the left as it wouldn’t involve suffering for thousands of Americans.

Except for all the people that aren’t getting subsidies that are getting completely screwed over by it. In Texas I can’t even buy a PPO plan for any amount of money privately. They don’t exist. So when I take several month sabbaticals I have zero coverage except life threatening conditions because of the garbage HMO plans.

Glad I work my ass off 500+ hours of overtime most years for some shitty healthcare plan so that the people working part time are covered, though.

The hard worker in me is pisses. Oh well, the eventual early FIRE guy will reap full benefits of those working hard while I slack off I suppose. At least I will know I worked hard many years contributing to those benefits.

Bolding mine.

Working part time? Dude, we dont work AT ALL and we get some NICE ACA subsidies.

Thank you United States tax payer. And yeah, I think it is stupid and the United States taxpayer cannot afford this kind of shit.

[use2betrix]

If the government outlawed cheeseburgers, would you call McDonald's switching to chicken patties a business decision?  I think not, although it would clearly be motivated by profit/loss since selling cheeseburgers is outlaws and no longer profitable.

You can still buy cheeseburgers somewhere else, you just have to pay more for the privilege.  Private corporations have not been forced to offer you unprofitable sandwiches, individual consumers have not been forced to buy chicken patties, and angry beefeaters who are upset about their difficulties finding reasonably priced artery-clogging cheeseburgers can go suck a lemon

You seem to continually be missing the point.

This isn’t about money. I’m not complaining about the cost. PPO plans are not available for ANY amount of money. I cannot buy cheeseburgers, despite what you think.

Yes - I feel like my rights were somewhat stripped because outside of Texas I would have ZERO health coverage aside from life threatening emergencies. Even then, from what I have researched is that these healthcare providers will fight tooth and nail to get out of paying.

Again - because you seem to have not grasped it the first couple times. It isn’t about the money, it’s that in Texas I no longer have the option to purchases a healthcare plan where I will have the same coverages outside of the shitty little HMO network

I’m not asking for whatever I want at any cost I want. I just want the option to even be able to purchase this plan at all.

Not sure how you continue to blame the insurance companies when the government has placed very extensive mandates on the insurance companies which dictate what they must provide.

[sol]

Not sure how you continue to blame the insurance companies when the government has placed very extensive mandates on the insurance companies which dictate what they must provide.

Those mandates did not forbid them from offering PPO plans, which is what you seem to be suggesting.  You are blaming politicians for what your insurance company decided to do in its effort to make the most money possible.

[use2betrix]

Not sure how you continue to blame the insurance companies when the government has placed very extensive mandates on the insurance companies which dictate what they must provide.

Those mandates did not forbid them from offering PPO plans, which is what you seem to be suggesting.  You are blaming politicians for what your insurance company decided to do in its effort to make the most money possible.

Due to the mandates they found it no longer to be fiscally feasible to offer these plans.

I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue just to argue or if you genuinely do not have an understand of economics at all. This is really, really, basic stuff.

Picture the government increasing property taxes to 50%. No one can afford homes so 90% of people go homeless. Instead of blaming the government that increased taxes, we instead blame the homeowners for not being able to afford homes.

[iris lily]

...In this case, the ACA made good insurance available to more people....,

The ACA did not make good insurance available to more people.  It made some sort of insurance available to more people.  Big difference. It also made healthcare much more difficult to afford by the middle class.

Yes to your first sentence and second sentence for sure.

 My overview opinion of the ACA is that I am confounded by how much incredible disruption it gave to the entire U.S. population when only a small percentage of US citizens gained health insurance from the act.

It just boggles my mind. The percentage of non elderly people who gained health insurance comparing non ACA years to ACA years just is not that much, something like 7%. That is approximate,
I cant find a number quickly with Mr Google.

And then, mandate or no mandate, many people who could afford the insurance did not buy it. Or at least our president, President Obama, assured them them  could afford it because the formulas for subsidies took into account their income. And surely our president could not of been wrong about that!

But yeah, the ACA is a big giant complex turd of a legislation, and that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t help a lot of people but it sure did affect an entire nation and in a way that entire nation may not consider positive.

[maizefolk]

It's essentially the same thing that has been driving the significant increases in premiums in many states since introductions. Insurance companies are figuring out how many people are actually signing up for the plans and how much and which types of medical services those folks require. You make your best guess, you offer the plans, you see what happens.

Well, let's not forget that the rate increases have also been intentionally driven up by Republican sabotage in a variety of ways. Like, I don't know, repealing the individual mandate, defunding the risk-sharing insurer subsidies, and introducing substantial political risk about what the marketplace will look like next year just before (and continuing after) the insurance companies have had to decide on rates.

Yes, this is a good point. You are right, political risk and ongoing changes in the new regulatory climate are certainly also contributing to the insurers not finding a stable equilibrium of plans to offer and the prices at which to offer them.

Not sure how you continue to blame the insurance companies when the government has placed very extensive mandates on the insurance companies which dictate what they must provide.

Those mandates did not forbid them from offering PPO plans, which is what you seem to be suggesting.  You are blaming politicians for what your insurance company decided to do in its effort to make the most money possible.

I have not seen use2betrix or anyone else suggest that the ACA made PPOs illegal.

[jpdx]

In the worst case scenario, if the SCOTUS strikes down the ACA, would the law go away instantly or would there be a delay? What happens to the tens of millions of people who rely the ACA for their health insurance?

[sol]

I have not seen use2betrix or anyone else suggest that the ACA made PPOs illegal.

I believe that partdopy did so here with the illegal cheeseburger analogy, which is the post I quoted above when arguing against it.

In the worst case scenario, if the SCOTUS strikes down the ACA, would the law go away instantly or would there be a delay? What happens to the tens of millions of people who rely the ACA for their health insurance?

Despite all the fearmongering, I have to believe that even the most Slytherin of republicans would opt for some kind of delayed phase-out option, rather than just making it all go poof overnight.  They would have to pitch some kind of replacement plan, other than just a wild-west style free for all where we each get to harvest whatever organs we need from our neighbors.  Their replacement plan might suck, and I'm sure it would anger lots of people, but it's unlikely to be as bad as what we had before because even the republican party has adopted and accepted a lot of the ACA provisions that have proven to be popular, like guaranteed issue. 

They would include some kind of pre-existing condition clause, but if their previous efforts are any indication it will probably punish people who have ever had a lapse in coverage.  They'd include some alternative form of subsidies, probably something terribly regressive like a fixed dollar amount to every American citizen so that rich people don't feel like they're getting any less than poor people.  They'll let kids stay on until age 26, though they'd probably try to exclude anyone with a criminal record, first generation immigrants, and anyone who doesn't have a government-issued ID that exactly matches their birth certificate and social security card.

My point is that no matter how shitty they get, they won't just strand all of those millions people with nothing at all. 

[jpdx]

To clarify, I'm not asking what will ultimately happen legislatively. I am asking if the SCOTUS can make the law go poof overnight.

[sherr]

To clarify, I'm not asking what will ultimately happen legislatively. I am asking if the SCOTUS can make the law go poof overnight.

I believe it's technically possible, but realistically would not happen. In general, and especially when we're talking about heavily political issues, the Supreme Court is generally very measured and careful with how they issue their rulings.

A recent example is Masterpiece Cakeshop case (the guy that was refusing to bake cakes for gay couples). They ended up finding for the baker, but the ruling wasn't "It's open season to discriminate against gays", it was "In this specific case the courts didn't consider the religious objections seriously enough and they have to go back and try again if they still want to prosecute."

IF this gets to the SC and IF they end up ruling against the ACA, neither of which I expect to happen, I would expect something similar. "We agree that the current state of the law is invalid and Congress has to do something to fix it before next year" or similar.

[iris lily]

To clarify, I'm not asking what will ultimately happen legislatively. I am asking if the SCOTUS can make the law go poof overnight.

I believe it's technically possible, but realistically would not happen. In general, and especially when we're talking about heavily political issues, the Supreme Court is generally very measured and careful with how they issue their rulings.

A recent example is Masterpiece Cakeshop case (the guy that was refusing to bake cakes for gay couples). They ended up finding for the baker, but the ruling wasn't "It's open season to discriminate against gays", it was "In this specific case the courts didn't consider the religious objections seriously enough and they have to go back and try again if they still want to prosecute."

IF this gets to the SC and IF they end up ruling against the ACA, neither of which I expect to happen, I would expect something similar. "We agree that the current state of the law is invalid and Congress has to do something to fix it before next year" or similar.

To be clear, your characterization of the case isn’t quite right and the technicality of it is important.

The baker did not refuse to bake a cake for “gay guys. “ He refused to bake a cake for an event, and occasion.  Those same men  and all of their gay friends could have all kinds of cakes baked according to their orders in that shop,  just not their wedding cake.

Now back to our regularly scheduled and more important discussion about cases the Supremes take and when.

[partdopy]

I believe that partdopy did so here with the illegal cheeseburger analogy, which is the post I quoted above when arguing against it.

 

No, I was making the point that the government changing the rules resulting in the inability to sell something (whether due to profitability or legality issues) is not a business decision.  At least not what anybody I know would classify as one.  It is a forced outcome due to a changing regulatory environment.

A business decision, at least in my opinion, is one that is made purely for business reasons, and purely due to natural business forces such as supply and demand, not because the government says businesses will operate in a certain way.

To make another analogy, if the government mandated that everyone needs to use every spare room in their house to house a homeless person or pay a $250/month fine, would you classify the resulting home sales by people downsizing as a decision based on regulatory changes or one based on personal desires for less spare rooms? Clearly it is not a decision based on a desire for less rooms, just as the insurance company not offering certain insurance plans because of government mandated costs is not a decision based on market profitability.

[sherr]

A recent example is Masterpiece Cakeshop case (the guy that was refusing to bake cakes for gay couples). They ended up finding for the baker, but the ruling wasn't "It's open season to discriminate against gays", it was "In this specific case the courts didn't consider the religious objections seriously enough and they have to go back and try again if they still want to prosecute."

To be clear, your characterization of the case isn’t quite right and the technicality of it is important.

The baker did not refuse to bake a cake for “gay guys. “ He refused to bake a cake for an event, and occasion.  Those same men  and all of their gay friends could have all kinds of cakes baked according to their orders in that shop,  just not their wedding cake.

I regret using this as my example then, but since we're here...

In my humble opinion this is a distinction without a difference. "He refused to bake a cake for an event, an occasion" because it was for gay people.

Take the exact specifics of the case and substitute "gay couple" with "interracial couple" and I think you'd find the law landing hard and heavy on the baker for illegal discrimination, and I suspect the baker would have far fewer online defenders. "My personal religious beliefs prevent me from participating in an interracial marriage ceremony" would probably not get him very far.

"But" - you object - "race is a protected category and sexual orientation is not, so that is as it should be." Maybe so, currently, but it is a protected class in Colorado, and I think cases like this only show that we need to add sexual orientation to the nationwide list of protected classes since they are in fact experiencing day-to-day discrimination we would not find acceptable against other disenfranchised classes. It's also worth noting (again) that the Supreme Court ruled that the courts didn't consider his religious objections seriously enough, they did not say that he was right.

[DreamFIRE]

To clarify, I'm not asking what will ultimately happen legislatively. I am asking if the SCOTUS can make the law go poof overnight.

I believe it's technically possible, but realistically would not happen. In general, and especially when we're talking about heavily political issues, the Supreme Court is generally very measured and careful with how they issue their rulings.

A recent example is Masterpiece Cakeshop case (the guy that was refusing to bake cakes for gay couples). They ended up finding for the baker, but the ruling wasn't "It's open season to discriminate against gays", it was "In this specific case the courts didn't consider the religious objections seriously enough and they have to go back and try again if they still want to prosecute."

IF this gets to the SC and IF they end up ruling against the ACA, neither of which I expect to happen, I would expect something similar. "We agree that the current state of the law is invalid and Congress has to do something to fix it before next year" or similar.

To be clear, your characterization of the case isn’t quite right and the technicality of it is important.

The baker did not refuse to bake a cake for “gay guys. “ He refused to bake a cake for an event, and occasion.  Those same men  and all of their gay friends could have all kinds of cakes baked according to their orders in that shop,  just not their wedding cake.

Exactly.  Thanks for pointing that out.