Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
È stato pubblicato il testo ufficiale della sentenza.
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiffs partial summary judgment and declares the Individual Mandate, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a), UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA, Pub. L. 111-148, are INSEVERABLE and therefore INVALID. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in Count I of the Amended Complaint.»
* * * * * * *
Questo è il mestissimo incipit del titolo del The New Yok Times, la testata liberal che sosteneva a spada tratta l’Obamacare: da bravi liberal democratici lo sostenevano perché ingiusto, illiberale ed anche incostituzionale.
«A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it.
The ruling was over a lawsuit filed this year by a group of Republican governors and state attorneys general. A group of intervening states led by Democrats promised to appeal the decision, which will most likely not have any immediate effect. But it will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court, threatening the survival of the landmark health law and, with it, health coverage for millions of Americans, protections for people with pre-existing conditions and much more.
In his ruling, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth said that the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.”
Accordingly, Judge O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, said that “the individual mandate is unconstitutional” and the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid.»
* * * * * * *
«Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, who initiated the lawsuit, applauded the decision, saying in a statement, “Today’s ruling enjoining Obamacare halts an unconstitutional exertion of federal power over the American health care system.”»
«He added, “Our lawsuit seeks to effectively repeal Obamacare, which will give President Trump and Congress the opportunity to replace the failed social experiment with a plan that ensures Texans and all Americans will again have greater choice about what health coverage they need and who will be their doctor.”»
* * * * * * * *
L’importanza dell’evento è sottolineato dai seguenti titoli comparsi simultaneamente oggi 16 dicembre sul The New York Times.
«The decision by a federal judge in Texas to strike down all of the Affordable Care Act has thrust the volatile debate over health care onto center stage in a newly divided capital, imperiling the insurance coverage of millions of Americans while delivering a possible policy opening to Democrats.
After campaigning vigorously on a pledge to protect patients with pre-existing medical conditions — a promise that helped return them to the House majority they had lost in 2010 — Democrats vowed to move swiftly to defend the law and to safeguard its protections.
On the defensive, Republicans campaigning this fall promised that they too backed the health law’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. But the Texas ruling illustrated the fruits — and possible perils — of their long-running campaign, stepped up in the Trump era, to remake the judiciary through the confirmation of dozens of conservative judges, including two appointees to the Supreme Court.»
«In the 11 years Judge Reed O’Connor has been on the federal bench, he has become a favorite of Republican leaders in Texas, reliably tossing out Democratic policies they have challenged.
The state’s Republican attorney general appears to strategically file key lawsuits in Judge O’Connor’s jurisdiction, the Northern District of Texas, so that he will hear them. And on Friday, the judge handed Republicans another victory by striking down the Affordable Care Act, the signature health law of the Obama era.
Judge O’Connor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, has been at the center of some of the most contentious and partisan cases involving federal power and states’ rights, and has sided with conservative leaders in previous challenges to the health law and against efforts to expand transgender rights.»
«Could a federal judge in Texas be the catalyst that finally brings down the Affordable Care Act, a law that has withstood countless assaults from Republicans in Congress and two Supreme Court challenges?
On the morning after Judge Reed O’Connor’s startling ruling that struck down the landmark health law, legal scholars were doubtful.»
«In a shocking legal ruling, a federal judge in Texas wiped Obamacare off the books Friday night. The decision, issued after business hours on the eve of the deadline to enroll for health insurance for 2019, focuses on the so-called individual mandate. Yet it purports to declare the entire law unconstitutional — everything from the Medicaid expansion, the ban on pre-existing conditions, Medicare and pharmaceutical reforms to much, much more.
A ruling this consequential had better be based on rock-solid legal argument. Instead, the opinion by Judge Reed O’Connor is an exercise of raw judicial power, unmoored from the relevant doctrines concerning when judges may strike down a whole law because of a single alleged legal infirmity buried within.»
«After sitting on a ruling for months, a federal judge in Texas has given the Trump administration and a group of Republican-led states exactly what they asked for, and then some: the invalidation of the entire Affordable Care Act.
Don’t panic. The ruling, issued late on Friday and only one day before the end of the law’s annual open enrollment period, is not a model of constitutional or statutory analysis. It’s instead a predictable exercise in motivated reasoning — drafted by a jurist with a history of ruling against policies and laws advanced by President Barack Obama.
The reason the judge, Reed O’Connor, gets these cases isn’t a mystery: Texas and its allied states know the game and shop these lawsuits right into Judge O’Connor’s courtroom.»
* * * * * * *
Sei titoli in prima pagina.
I liberal democratici sono i figli minori del dr. Göbbels: un vero maestro nell’arte della disinformazione.
Maieutico il trattato:
Daniel Katz, Public opinion and propaganda; A book of readings, The society for the psychological study of social issues. Dryden Press, 1954.
«1. Principio della semplificazione e del nemico unico.
È necessario adottare una sola idea, un unico simbolo. E, soprattutto, identificare l’avversario in un nemico, nell’unico responsabile di tutti i mali.
Principio del metodo del contagio.
Riunire diversi avversari in una sola categoria o in un solo individuo.
Principio della trasposizione.
Caricare sull’avversario i propri errori e difetti, rispondendo all’attacco con l’attacco. Se non puoi negare le cattive notizie, inventane di nuove per distrarre.
Principio dell’esagerazione e del travisamento.
Trasformare qualunque aneddoto, per piccolo che sia, in minaccia grave.
Principio della volgarizzazione.
Tutta la propaganda deve essere popolare, adattando il suo livello al meno intelligente degli individui ai quali va diretta. Quanto più è grande la massa da convincere, più piccolo deve essere lo sforzo mentale da realizzare. La capacità ricettiva delle masse è limitata e la loro comprensione media scarsa, così come la loro memoria.
Principio di orchestrazione.
La propaganda deve limitarsi a un piccolo numero di idee e ripeterle instancabilmente, presentarle sempre sotto diverse prospettive, ma convergendo sempre sullo stesso concetto. Senza dubbi o incertezze. Da qui proviene anche la frase: «Una menzogna ripetuta all’infinito diventa la verità».
Principio del continuo rinnovamento.
Occorre emettere costantemente informazioni e argomenti nuovi (anche non strettamente pertinenti) a un tale ritmo che, quando l’avversario risponda, il pubblico sia già interessato ad altre cose. Le risposte dell’avversario non devono mai avere la possibilità di fermare il livello crescente delle accuse.
Principio della verosimiglianza.
Costruire argomenti fittizi a partire da fonti diverse, attraverso i cosiddetti palloni sonda, o attraverso informazioni frammentarie.
Principio del silenziamento.
Passare sotto silenzio le domande sulle quali non ci sono argomenti e dissimulare le notizie che favoriscono l’avversario.
Principio della trasfusione.
Come regola generale, la propaganda opera sempre a partire da un substrato precedente, si tratti di una mitologia nazionale o un complesso di odi e pregiudizi tradizionali. Si tratta di diffondere argomenti che possano mettere le radici in atteggiamenti primitivi.
Portare la gente a credere che le opinioni espresse siano condivise da tutti, creando una falsa impressione di unanimità.»
* * * * * * *
Pochi giorni or sono
Un tribunale federale ha posto fine a tutte le azioni giudiziarie intentate dai liberal democratici con l’Amministrazione Trump circa i migranti. Una pietra miliare nella giurisprudenza americana, ma quasi totalmente ignorata dai media.
Una sentenzia che mette bene in evidenza la capziosità partigiana dei liberal democratici.
Oggi la sentenza che dichiara incostituzionale l’Obamacare.
Due consecutivi trionfi del Presidente Trump.
Due ceffoni a palmo aperto sul volto dei liberal.
Erano stati grandi sostenitori delle Corti di Giustizia quando queste sentenziavano, illegalmente, a loro favore. Oggi invece una ‘weaponized Court‘ avrebbe preso ‘partisan ruling‘. La loro malafede è evidente.
Ma adesso che vi sono giudici giusti ed equi, allora li etichettano come partigiani.
Dicano e facciano ciò che vogliono, non ci interessa più di tanto.
Ciò che conta sono i risultati finali.
Ride bene esclusivamente chi ride ultimo.
→ Bloomberg. 2018-12-15. Obamacare Thrown Out by Judge, Raising Insurance Uncertainty
– U.S. judge in Texas dismantles Obama’s Affordable Care Act
– Decision threatens health coverage for millions of Americans
Obamacare was struck down by a Texas federal judge in a ruling that casts uncertainty on insurance coverage for millions of U.S. residents.
The decision Friday finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional comes at the tail end of a six-week open enrollment period for the program in 2019 and underscores a divide between Republicans who have long sought to invalidate the law and Democrats who fought to keep it in place.
The White House said the ruling will be put on hold during an appeals process that’s destined to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of Republican states led by Texas that he had to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, the signature health-care overhaul by President Barack Obama, after Congress last year zeroed out a key provision — the tax penalty for not complying with the requirement to buy insurance.
“Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA’s consumer protections for health care, and on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, leading a chorus of Democrats who blasted the decision. A spokeswoman for Becerra vowed a quick challenge to O’Connor’s ruling.
Texas and an alliance of 19 states argued to the judge that they’ve been harmed by an increase in the number of people on state-supported insurance rolls. They claimed that when Congress last year repealed the tax penalty for the so-called individual mandate, it eliminated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale for finding the ACA constitutional in 2012.
The Texas judge agreed. He likened the debate over which provisions of the law should stand or fail to “watching a slow game of Jenga, each party poking at a different provision to see if the ACA falls.” He also wrote that it’s clear the individual mandate is the linchpin of the law “without marching through every nook and cranny of the ACA’s 900-plus pages.”
“The court must find the individual mandate inseverable from the ACA,” he said. “To find otherwise would be to introduce an entirely new regulatory scheme never intended by Congress or signed by the president.”
President Donald Trump and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling, while the American Medical Association called the decision “an unfortunate step backward for our health system.”
Some health-care law experts were quick to critique the judge’s reasoning and predicted the ruling will be overturned.
“We know what Congress’ intent was in 2017 — that was to pull the individual mandate while keeping the rest of ACA intact,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said. “Now we have a judge saying we have an unenforceable mandate. This whole thing is bonkers.”
With just one day left in the sign-up period for 2019 Obamacare coverage, the judge’s ruling is unlikely to have much of an effect on those actively shopping for insurance for next year. As of Dec. 8, 4.1 million people had chosen plans through the federal-government run portal that 39 states use for enrollment.
Total enrollment is on track to be lower than in previous years, which many critics have credited to efforts by the Trump administration to promote alternatives to the law or cut back on its promotion.
California and Democratic officials in 14 states, along with the District of Columbia, won permission to defend the ACA in the Fort Worth case when the Trump administration sided with the states seeking to dismantle it. They contended that overturning the law would throw millions off health insurance rolls by reversing Medicaid expansion, ending tax credits that help people and empowering insurers to once again deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Justice Department lawyers urged the judge to strike down the individual mandate and provisions requiring insurance companies to cover individuals with preexisting health conditions and charge them the same premiums as healthy individuals. They argued the judge should spare the rest of the law, which includes Medicaid expansion, the employer mandate, health exchanges, premium subsidies and federal health-care reimbursement rates for hospitals.
The judge’s ruling would, since it overturns the entire act, also end provisions that have little to do with health insurance. Those include parts of the law on adding calorie counts on restaurant menus and speeding to market cheaper versions of costly biotechnology drugs.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh launched a counterattack Sept. 13 to save Obamacare, seeking a judgment that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and a court order barring the U.S. from taking any action inconsistent with that conclusion. Frosh sued then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the federal departments of Justice and Health and Human Services.
The Texas case is Texas v. U.S., 4:18-cv-00167-O, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth). Frosh’s case is State of Maryland v. United States, 1:18-cv-02849, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore).