Let us conjecture that you are a person who is alive because of the help that you are receiving from the ACA. Let us now further conjecture that the Senate gets rid of the ACA. Without its benefits, you die.
So the question for our lawyer friends out there it is: are the senators who voted to get rid of your health support responsible for your death? Can they be arrested for murder? Can they be prosecuted and jailed? Can they be sued by the survivors?
I figure the answer is no, but it is certainly intriguing to imagine.
PAD
• 
Can the doctor who refuses to lower his fees to something you CAN afford responsible for murder? That’s where this insanity ends, you know.
The mistake was employer-provided health insurance, back in the 40s, prompted by the US Government’s over-reach in wage controls.
The answer to your question is no.
I look forward to genuine answers to mine.
PAD
The difference between the senator or congressman and the doctor is choice. The senator and congressman have a CHOICE on how they vote. The price of procedures are actually set based on a system that takes into account factors such as: complexity of the procedure, the cost of performing the procedure, the cost to the facility, the cost of labor, and the cost of living in your general area. And weirder still due of demand and type of skill required that geographic cost of living factor is not the same from procedure to procedure in each location.
Negligent homicide? Wrongful death civil suit?
Nope, there is no legal remedy for “legislative malpractice.”
I like that phrase and hope to see it more often following the unfortunate gutting of the ACA…
Not only is the answer no, the question itself is an unserious exercise in hyperbole.
The politicians and government officials who are responsible for much more literal acts of murder via acts of war aren’t prosecuted. Heck, some of them even get Nobel Peace Prizes.
“Heck, some of them even get Nobel Peace Prizes.”
Oh, look, the Obligatory Obama slam.
Never mind WMD…oops, I mean GWB…whose negligence and lies resulted in thousands of American deaths.
Historically, that’s been a standard slam of Henry Kissinger.
I am absolutely NOT a lawyer, but I do know that members of Congress has strong legal protections for actions that take while in Congress. The language for Article I, Sections 6, Clause 1, is a bit arcane sounding to me, but Wikipedia sums it up that they can’t be sued for slander or criminally prosecuted for things that they SAY in Congress. This was the legal argument that insuresd Senator Mike Gravel would not be prosecuted for the reading the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, thus making them legally public when it would have been illegal for almost anyone else to release the information.
As to the actual vote…that it something that would take an actual lawyer, but changing the legal structure of the U.S. to a system that leaves people with no option but to die in poverty? I think they’re in the clear (legally if not not morally) as they’re not breaking the law, they’re changing it. Again, not even CLOSE to a lawyer. I’m an accountant.
Sounds like the setup for a murder mystery. A child dies of a treatable illness. The grieving parent stalks and murders a wealthy and powerful Senator for voting to repeal the ACA.
In seriousness, this whole situation’s awful.
LAW & ORDER: No Suffix did that halfway through its run where someone was up on murder charges for killing an insurance executive he saw as responsible for denying what he thought was life saving (but very expensive and unproven) drug treatment to his child who died as a result. Don’t recall whether he got convicted or whether a sympathetic jury let him off.
Absolutely not, barring a constitutional amendment. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the constitution protects them. A law may be declared unconstitutional, but the act of debating or voting in Congress can never be illegal. This is a very good thing, as it’s designed to protect the separation of powers and keep the Executive Branch from arresting the Legislative Branch for voting the wrong way.
Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed!
Michael Corleone: Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?
Sovereign immunity would protect them.
A shame in this case, because people are going to suffer and die when the ACA is repealed.
Unless it is immediately replaced by something better.
.
OK, you can all stop laughing now. *sigh*
I live in California. I just called my state representatives to ask them to ready a contingency plan to protect our state’s residents if we lose the Affordable Care Act. I told them I was fine with adopting the ACA rules, implementing single-payer, or converting the Kaiser Permanente system into a state health plan. Whatever best serves the people of California.
.
I encourage all reading this to call your state representatives and ask them to get a backup plan going if we lose the ACA.
I am more than happy to lose the ‘Affordable’ Care Act. My premiums (before incentives) have climbed 300% in six years. Even with incentives, I can barely afford the $200 a month it is costing me. (I get $447 in incentives!) The ACA was always a ‘Don’t through me in dat dere br’er patch’ play by the insurance companies. They got to charge what ever they liked, and only had to add a few extra customers to the mix!
ACA was a start, but the end result needs to be single-payer.
The 1st problem in getting there: politicians.
The 2nd: the health insurance industry.
The 3rd: women’s rights.
.
I don’t want to place coverage for abortion and birth control under Republican control. Women are better off under private insurers.
As noted above, short answer is no.
But ObamaCare is in a death spiral, so killing it would be euthanasia.
It is failing in exactly the way a LOT of us predicted. In response, we were called liars, racists, told we hated poor people and wanted poor people to die, and so on.
More and more people are paying higher and higher premiums for plans with less coverage and higher deductibles, so they’re paying more for less.
Over 3/4 of the ObamaCare exchanges have already failed.
In huge swaths of the country, people have only one provider, and very few plans to choose from.
Even with all this, insurance companies are finding it harder and harder to break even, let alone make a profit. Several are threatening to simply get out of the health insurance business entirely.
Remember those people who did all they could to steamroll over those who accurately predicted ObamaCare’s failures? Those same people say that it just needs a little fixing and a little more money, and if it fails now, it’s those proven-right critics’ fault. Meanwhile, the people who were right back then are saying that it’s beyond fixing, and there isn’t enough money in the world to make it work.
I understand why you’d want to believe the people who were totally wrong back then, but there is no logical reason to assume they’re right now. Especially when they keep insisting they weren’t wrong back then, despite the facts that keep happening.
Jay, the ACA is not in a Death Spiral. Wherever you got that information from is mistaken or lying to you. The predicted Death Spiral would be have more and more people dropping out of the exchanges as plans became too expensive and the customers decided to simply pay the penalty for not having coverage as that was cheaper than the coverage they could by. The opposite it happening. The number of people buying insurance through the exchanges is increasing The percentage of people in the U.S. who are without insurance is at its lowest level since that statistic has been tracked and almost certainly at the lowest rate ever. The rate of inflation for medical costs has decreased. The ACA is working.
Wherever you’re getting your information from is doing you a disservice.
See also, Jeff Linder’s reply below. It is more detailed with regard to specific insurance companies.
Jay is not interested in facts, not when he has The Great Pumpkin telling him that everything is fake news (except for what The Great Pumpkin tweets about, of course).
And yes, Jay. You are a racist and a liar, you do hate poor people and want them to die, just like the rest of the Republican party does.
Want to prove otherwise? Stop being a lemming for The Great Pumpkin.
“But ObamaCare is in a death spiral, so killing it would be euthanasia.”
.
Talking point lie. Repeating lies you like doesn’t make them true.
.
.
Paul Ryan wrongly claims actuaries have determined Obamacare is in a ‘death spiral’
.
Our rating
.
“The latest figures show enrollment in the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchange is up slightly from last year. Through Dec. 24, 2016, some 11.5 million people were signed up for coverage, an increase of 300,000 from the same point last year.
.
“This market is not merely stable, it’s actually currently on track to grow,” said Aviva Aron-Dine, an economist with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “These (death spiral claims) are claims that have been sort of demonstrably false for a while, but it’s even more irresponsible to be repeating them now when we actually have enrollment data for 2017.”
.
“As for the risk pool, Aron-Dine said it improved in 2015. Data for 2016 isn’t available yet, but the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports the share of people signing up for 2017 in the low-risk demographic — ages 18-34 — is on par with 2016, at 26% of enrollees.
.
“Larry Levitt, vice president of the health care-focused, nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, noted the 26% number in a Jan. 10, 2017, tweet, adding, “You’d expect that number to go down in an insurance ‘death spiral.’”
.
A death spiral is a health industry term for a cycle with three components — shrinking enrollment, healthy people leaving the system and rising premiums.
.
The latest data shows enrollment is increasing slightly and younger (typically healthier) people are signing up at the same rate as last year. And while premiums are increasing, that isn’t affecting the cost to most consumers due to built-in subsidies.
.
So none of the three criteria are met, much less all three.
.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/18/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-wrongly-claims-actuaries-have-determined/
.
I’m sure you have something nonsensical and less than factual you want to deny reality with. But, hey, thms th brks, Jy.
Actually, the answer is a bit more nuanced, but the overall answer is No. Politicians cannot be charged based on the outcome of voting…
Except..
If you could prove that the vote was made purely for personal enrichment or other corrupt practices, THEN it is possible to charge someone based on the outcome – that will not apply in this case.
Oh and Jay Tea – um, wrong.. Yes, some smaller insurers have had issues, but in general Insurance Companies have done just fine in the last 5 years…
” More coverage = higher revenue and profits. UnitedHealth has outperformed the broader stock market by a wide margin since the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was signed into law in March 2010.
The stock also beat the market last year as most of the provisions of the ACA went into effect and consumers started to receive coverage.
Simply put, greater access to health insurance has led to more customers for the insurance giants. And UnitedHealth is not the only company to benefit.
From early 2015: “UnitedHealth has outperformed the broader stock market by a wide margin since the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was signed into law in March 2010.
The stock also beat the market last year as most of the provisions of the ACA went into effect and consumers started to receive coverage.
Simply put, greater access to health insurance has led to more customers for the insurance giants. And UnitedHealth is not the only company to benefit.
The other four members of the so-called Big Five health insurers — Aetna (AET), Cigna (CI), Humana (HUM), and Anthem (ANTM) (formerly WellPoint) — have all beaten the S&P 500 over the past five years or so as well. ”
And this is from United Health’s filing for Q1 2016
“First Quarter Revenues of $44.5 Billion Grew 25% Year-Over-Year
• UnitedHealthcare Added 2 Million More People Domestically in the Past 12 Months,
Including 1.3 Million More People in the First Quarter
• Optum Revenues of $19.7 Billion Grew 54% Year-Over-Year
• Cash Flows from Operations were $2.3 Billion in the Quarter
• First Quarter Adjusted Net Earnings of $1.81 Per Share Grew 17% Year-Over-Year”
Yep. They are really hurting with $8.5 billion in profits. They can’t make a penny.
Or, and I know this could get me banned for heresy, you could look up North at our system and adopt it. It’s not perfect, but it gets better results (81.8 years vs 79.8 life expectancy in the US – CIA factbook) at a lesser per capita cost. A friend, who’s on Disability Income (less than $1000 a month) has been in hospital for over three weeks. When he gets out, he’ll owe maybe $45 for the {privatized} ambulance ride there. Yes, it is paid for via our taxes, but taxes not so onerous that we can’t afford to live comfortably, enjoy the occasional travel, so forth. In other words, don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
I see at least one problem with this plan: the United States is not as enlightened as Canada on reproductive rights.
.
I’m against federal single-payer here in the States until we repeal the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which bans federal spending on abortion. Hyde affects all federal health plans — Medicaid, TRICARE, VA and Medicare (with the last group being blissfully infertile).
.
Federal single-payer also places women’s access to birth control at risk. Our current Congress wants to strip Title X funding from Planned Parenthood. This would take away birth control access from poor women and teenagers. Imagine if that same Congress defined coverage for a federal single-payer plan. Women would get the short end of the stick.
.
I am open to state-based single-payer for certain states. I can picture California implementing a single-payer plan that protects women. However, I think women in Kansas are better off under private insurance plans.
It’s been a little over three years since the Obamacare exchanges first went up. In some instances, people were thrown off their healthcare plan or had to switch doctors because of the law. Has anyone tried to sue the government for any negative consequences (like death, to use Peter’s example) of that enforced switch and if so, what were the results of that litigation? The answer to that might give you a better idea of whether Peter’s scenario might come true.
-Dave O’Connell
P.S. On a related note, my wife is disabled with MS and has Medicare/Medicaid. The one big change we’ve noticed since Obamacare is that the uninsured cost of her Rebif medication doubled to about $5,000 at the beginning of 2014. Wasn’t affordable before, was even less affordable after. We learned this because we moved to another state in Dec. 2013 and there was a brief gap in her prescription-medication coverage (we ended up getting a voucher from the Rebif manufacturer to keep the medication supply going).
Back to the basic question, this is sad. This should be Civics 101. It boils down to two basic precepts of the United States Constitution — the Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances.
Passing laws is an exclusive power of Congress. No other branch of government can interfere with that power. In your scenario, a representative of the Executive Branch (a prosecutor) would be asking a representative of the Judicial Branch (a judge) to interfere with that power. So, no. They can’t stop Congress from passing a law, or compel them to pass one.
The Checks and Balances come in after Congress passes a law. The president can veto it, and the courts can declare it unconstitutional. But they can’t interfere with the passing of a law.
So, if Congress were to pass a law outlawing the color blue or setting the value of pi to 3 or making the Oxford comma legally required, they can do so. Only once the law is passed can it be challenged.
These are concepts that apparently escaped former Constitutional Law professor Barack Obama, who once declared that Congress was recessed so he could make an appointment, without Congress agreeing. He also threatened that if Congress didn’t pass a law he wanted, he’d just issue an Executive Order to achieve the same thing.
If we lose the ACA, we must think about saving those we can.
.
I called my state representatives Friday morning and asked them to ready a contingency plan should we lose the ACA. I told them I’d be fine with any of the following:
.
1) Adopt the ACA as California state law.
2) Implement state-based single-payer for California.
3) Convert Kaiser Permanente to a state health plan.
.
We’re the sixth-largest economy in the world, and we have the population size of Canada. We have the means to protect ourselves if we lose the ACA.
I appreciated the previous LAW AND ORDER reference. It reminded me of happier times (I miss that show something fierce).
I think Jack McCoy argue that repealing the ACA itself can be a good faith effort to “fix” something genuinely believed to be broken. It would be a steep hurdle to prove that there’s actual malice in pursuing a course that would deprive people of health care access, even if the results are negative. To flip the politics, if Democrats had succeeded in passing more restrictive gun laws after Sand Hook and someone who was unable to buy a gun as a result died in a home invasion, then you can’t legally accuse them of murder.
But I think McCoy would perhaps pounce on the recklessness of the “rush to repeal,” which is arguably pure politics (and anything done purely for politics can be said to be done for personal gain). There has been no evidence of work for a serious replacement to the ACA despite campaigning on repeal and replace and “repeal and delay” has been stated to be needlessly rash and could have fatal repercussions. The “death spiral” argument could be proven to be a known falsehood (thus demonstrating consciousness of guilt).
Trump is president for four years. The GOP control Congress for at least 2. For me, it’s more odious that people suffer for a rush to declare victory when the rush is not necessary.