A Norwegian Air Boeing 737MAX was forced to divert to Iran after suffering a mechanical failure

Norwegian Air Boeing 737 MAX

A Norwegian Air Boeing 737MAX was forced to make an unscheduled landing in Iran on Friday due to a technical malfunction.
The two-month-old jet landed safely in Shiraz, Iran.
The 189 passengers and crew on board were transported to a hotel near the airport.
A relief Boeing 737-800 was dispatched from Norway along with a pair of technicians who will determine if spare parts will need to be sourced.

It is unclear if there will be complications with parts procurement due to recent US sanctions against Iran.

A Norwegian Air Boeing 737MAX was forced to make an unscheduled landing in Iran on Friday due to a technical malfunction.

Norwegian Air Flight 1933 was en route from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to Oslo, Norway when it was forced to divert to Shiraz, Iran.

“The aircraft landed normally and taxied to a gate allowing passengers to disembark,” Anders Lindstrom, Norwegian Air’s director of communications in the US, told Business Insider via email.

No injuries have been reported among the 189 passengers and crew on board the flight.

Read more: Boeing just launched a new $400 million 777X private airliner, and it’s a flying mansion that can go halfway around the world.

After landing, all passengers were transported to a hotel near the airport, Lindstrom said. A relief Boeing 737-800 was dispatched to Iran from Norway to pick up the stranded passengers.

The relief flight will bring the passengers to Oslo on Saturday after the flight crew completes their mandatory rest period.

According to Norwegian, the brand-new Boeing 737MAX suffered an unspecified “technical issue.” The aircraft involved in the incident, registration LN-BKE, was just delivered to the airline in at the end of October.

However, flight tracking website FlightRadar24 pointed to a …read more

Source:: Business Insider

The Texas ruling against Obamacare is a boon to Medicare-for-All

The Republican strategy to pass Medicare-for-All continues.

The Texas ruling finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional is ludicrous in its reasoning and unlikely to survive appeal. It argues, in short, that since Congress removed the penalty from the individual mandate, the individual mandate is no longer a tax; because the individual mandate is not a tax, it is no longer constitutional; and if the mandate is no longer constitutional, the entire law must be judged unconstitutional.

To do anything else would be, of course, immodest. As Judge Reed O’Connor writes, courts “are not tasked with, nor are they suited to, policymaking.” Yes, he is literally writing that as he tries to overturn Obamacare with a stroke of his pen. You can almost hear the “lol” he must’ve deleted from the first draft.

“If you were ever tempted to think that right-wing judges weren’t activist — that they were only ‘enforcing the Constitution’ or ‘reading the statute’ — this will persuade you to knock it off,” wrote law professor Nicholas Bagley. “This is insanity in print, and it will not stand up on appeal.”

You might spy a hole in Judge O’Connor’s reasoning: Wasn’t it Congress that chose to remove the penalty from the individual mandate without choosing to repeal all of Obamacare? And as such, isn’t it quite clear that Congress intended Obamacare to stand even without an individual mandate imposing a penalty?

Ah, but Judge O’Connor has thought of this. He says that since the Congress that repealed the individual mandate was working through budget reconciliation and couldn’t repeal the mandate, “the 2017 Congress had no intent with respect to the Individual Mandate’s severability” (“severability” refers to whether a provision can be severed from a law while the law still stands). And he goes on to say that even …read more

Source:: Vox – All

A federal judge just ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional, threatening healthcare chaos

A sign on an insurance store advertises Obamacare in San Ysidro, San Diego, California, U.S., October 26, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake

In a ruling released Friday evening, a federal judge in Texas sided with 19 states arguing that key provisions of the Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” are unconstitutional.
The ruling brings new uncertainty to the country’s healthcare markets, a day before the deadline to sign up for Affordable Care Act health plans in many states.
The ruling doesn’t go into effect immediately, and is almost certain to be appealed by state attorneys general who are defending the law.

In a ruling released Friday evening, a federal judge in Texas sided with states arguing that key provisions of the Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” are unconstitutional. The decision is almost certain to be appealed.

Texas led 19 states arguing that the individual mandate — the requirement that everyone must have health insurance — is unconstitutional, after Congress gutted the key portion of the mandate, the tax penalty for not buying coverage.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas agreed with those states and ruled that “Second, the Court finds the Individual Mandate can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power and is still impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause—meaning the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional.”

Judge O’Connor also ruled that the Individual Mandate is “essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA.”

That led the judge to conclude that the health law should be struck down. That includes the health law’s subsidies that help people buy coverage, its expansion of Medicaid to millions of low income people, and its protections that let people with pre-existing conditions buy insurance.

“If this Texas decision on the ACA is upheld, it would throw the individual insurance market and the whole health care system into complete chaos,” Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation said on Twitter. “But, …read more

Source:: Business Insider

Federal court rules Obamacare unconstitutional

The lawsuit — backed by the Trump administration — threatens to overturn Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions.

A federal judge in Texas has ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, finding that the law cannot stand now that Congress has rolled back the mandate that everyone carry health insurance or pay a fine.

The new ruling poses a significant threat to the Affordable Care Act’s most popular and most sweeping health insurance reforms. If affirmed at higher courts, it could roll back Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions. Insurers would once again be able to charge sick patients higher premiums.

The Trump administration had partially supported this lawsuit, filing a brief asking the court to overturn Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions.

“The Court finds the Individual Mandate ‘is essential to’ and inserverable from ‘the other provisions’ of the ACA,” judge Reed O’Connor wrote in a late Friday ruling.

O’Connor’s decision will near certainly be appealed up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which could ultimately send the case to the Supreme Court. It is not entirely clear yet what the ruling will mean for current Obamacare enrollees — or those currently signing up, as the program’s open enrollment period ends at midnight on Friday.

Legal experts on the left and the right believe the arguments being made by Republican-led states are, on their face, uncompelling and unlikely to succeed in overturning the Affordable Care Act.

At the same time, there is a history of lawsuits that most legal experts thought were unpersuasive nonetheless putting ACA in mortal danger — first the lawsuit against the individual mandate and then the challenge to insurance subsidies.

With this first victory, it becomes a more real possibility that this lawsuit could end up in that category.

Texas v. United States, the lawsuit that threatens to take down Obamacare, …read more

Source:: Vox – All