contempt in the aftermath About former President Donald Trump. On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court refused to invalidate the icon
Obama Care. Law on health insurance developed by
Barack Obama During his tenure which his successor tried by all means to suppress it.
The decision to maintain this health coverage for millions of Americans was made by a majority of seven out of nine judges. Their decision, the third devoted to this law, was based on a procedural argument: According to them, Texas and the other Republican states that lodged the appeal were not justified in it. The new Democratic president Joe Biden This latest attempt by Republicans to repeal a law that has proven particularly useful during the Covid-19 pandemic has been considered “cruel”.
The law has already cut out fines
In its original form, Obamacare required all Americans, even those in good health, to purchase emphasis Under penalty of financial penalties, companies are forced to insure all potential customers, regardless of their health status. This reform made it possible to provide health coverage to 31 million Americans who did not have it before, but Republicans have always viewed compulsory insurance as an abuse of government power.
Therefore, their first appeal was to this “individual mandate”. The Supreme Court upheld it in 2012, ruling that fines can be considered taxes and justified state interference. When he reached the White House, Donald Trump tried to repeal the law in Congress but suffered a severe setback. However, Republican elected officials were able to amend it in 2017, lowering fines for lack of insurance to zero.
Has the law become unconstitutional?
Several republican states subsequently introduced new legal remedies, arguing that the law was no longer in force. In December 2018, a federal judge in Texas agreed with them: “The foundation stone” for the building that fell, and the entire law is unconstitutional, he decided.
This is the decision that the Supreme Court overturned on Thursday. “We have not decided the question of the validity of the law, but Texas and other plaintiffs are not qualified to raise that,” Progressive Judge Stephen Breyer wrote on behalf of the majority of his colleagues.
“Unapologetic pop culture trailblazer. Freelance troublemaker. Food guru. Alcohol fanatic. Gamer. Explorer. Thinker.”