The Politics of PPACA/Obamacare: Facts & History & Constitutionality

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Politics of PPACA/Obamacare: Facts & History & Constitutionality

Term: 2010-2019 : 2011
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_400
Facts of the Case Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay.

added info: The Court and Health Care Reform | Oyez Today Oyez, Oyez, Oyez! The 2011?2012 U.S. Supreme Court Term in Review | Britannica Blog

It seems obvious that some on the right and some just plainly upset with Obama have their own facts and conclusions about what is and is not correct. Chief among these is the constitutionality and ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Why is this so? How can this be?

Simple: Commentators and spinmeisters and others have been out in public on blogs, websites, newspapers, radio and television distorting and misconstruing most everything they can on this one. Ever since the day of the ruling, misanthropic troglodytes, mainly on the right, have been looking at angles and revisiting them with the intentions of sowing the seeds of discontent with the act. Now along comes a website rollout and you'd think the US Marines just landed in Benghazzi.

4. The majority did not address the serverability question after concluding that the Individual Mandate was constitutional.


stay tuned.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Opinion of ROBERT, C. J.
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012)

Opinion of the Court​

I​

In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, 124 Stat. 119. The Act aims to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. The Act’s 10 titles stretch over 900 pages and contain hundreds of provisions. This case concerns constitutional challenges to two key provisions, commonly referred to as the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion.

The individual mandate requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens. §5000A(d). Many individuals will receive the required coverage through their employer, or from a government program such as Medicaid or Medicare. See §5000A(f). But for individuals who are not exempt and do not receive health insurance through a third party, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company.

Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization).
Ibid. ; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).

Good so far? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

II​

Before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have the authority to do so.

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a). This statute protects the Government’s ability to collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes. Because of the Anti-Injunction Act, taxes can ordinarily be challenged only after they are paid, by suing for a refund. See Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U. S. 1, 7–8 (1962).

The penalty for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate first becomes enforceable in 2014. The present challenge to the mandate thus seeks to restrain the penalty’s future collection.

Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit. The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.

The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to describe the “hared responsibility payment” imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a “penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2).

There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.” Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty” rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as “taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).

See?

The mandate was ruled constitutional as was the PPACA itself. So what is it people keep arguing about when they say the act itself or the mandate or some other part was not ruled constitutional?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

great frigging link: The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

audio and transcripts

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

II​

Before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have the authority to do so.

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a). This statute protects the Government’s ability to collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes. Because of the Anti-Injunction Act, taxes can ordinarily be challenged only after they are paid, by suing for a refund. See Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U. S. 1, 7–8 (1962).

The penalty for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate first becomes enforceable in 2014. The present challenge to the mandate thus seeks to restrain the penalty’s future collection.

Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit. The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.

The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to describe the “hared responsibility payment” imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a “penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2).

There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.” Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty” rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as “taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).

See?

The mandate was ruled constitutional as was the PPACA itself. So what is it people keep arguing about when they say the act itself or the mandate or some other part was not ruled constitutional?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Partisan politics, having nothing to do with the Constitution, law, or merits of the ACA.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

II​

Before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have the authority to do so.

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a). This statute protects the Government’s ability to collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes. Because of the Anti-Injunction Act, taxes can ordinarily be challenged only after they are paid, by suing for a refund. See Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U. S. 1, 7–8 (1962).

The penalty for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate first becomes enforceable in 2014. The present challenge to the mandate thus seeks to restrain the penalty’s future collection.

Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit. The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.

The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to describe the “hared responsibility payment” imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a “penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2).

There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would apply to a “penalty.” Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty” rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as “taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).

See?

The mandate was ruled constitutional as was the PPACA itself. So what is it people keep arguing about when they say the act itself or the mandate or some other part was not ruled constitutional?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Partisan politics, having nothing to do with the Constitution, law, or merits of the ACA.

Huh ? Who started the partisan, two party system in American politics and why?

Hmm..., let me see...Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Burr, et al and why?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION]

[MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION]

dumb ass i'm not chief justice roberts nor am i obama neither link or the video did i have anything to do with, except posting them. They are not my opinion they are fact.

Obamacare mandate was ruled unconstitutional the tax was not. Obama said it wasn't a tax.
Shut the fuck up.

4. The majority did not address the serverability question after concluding that the individual mandate was constitutional.

justices scalia, kennedy, thomas, and alito argued that the individual mandate and medicaid expansion are inserverable, and that the entirety of the aca is therefore unconstitutional. The provisions of the act, they argue, are "closely interrelated," with the two unconstitutional provisions serving as "pillars." - the affordable care act cases | the oyez project at iit chicago-kent college of law

get it yet, loser?

idiot you don't seem to comprehend it. Obamacare mandate was ruled unconstitutional. Obamacare as a tax was ruled constitutional that isn't opinion that is fact supported by the media.
Fact number two obama said it wasn't a tax so shut the fuck up.

...

[MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION]

Dumb ass I'm not Chief Justice Roberts nor am I obama neither link or the video did I have anything to do with, except posting them. They are not my opinion they are fact.

OBAMACARE mandate was ruled unconstitutional the tax was not. obama said it wasn't a tax.
SHUT THE FUCK UP.

4. The majority did not address the serverability question after concluding that the Individual Mandate was constitutional.

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito argued that the Individual Mandate and Medicaid expansion are inserverable, and that the entirety of the ACA is therefore unconstitutional. The provisions of the Act, they argue, are "closely interrelated," with the two unconstitutional provisions serving as "pillars." - The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Get it yet, loser?

Idiot you don't seem to comprehend it. obamacare mandate was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. obamacare as a tax was ruled constitutional that isn't opinion that is fact supported by the media.

Fact number two obama said it wasn't a tax so shut the fuck up.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-facts-and-history-and-constitutionality.html

You truly are demented.....how about linking and quoting the exact phrase by the majority and/or CJ Roberts that you are claiming exist


It should be simple even for the likes of you

A challenge for the Bull Ring?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

too funny. Wasted most of the day but it was worth it.

Fun, fun, fun...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-alternative-to-obamacare-40.html#post8156332 - http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...e-republican-alternative-to-obamacare-41.html

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bump