CDZ Why is the ACA unconstitutional?

[task0778]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

 

[hunarcy]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

I think it was ruled constitutional because it was a tax. When it stopped being a tax, it stopped being constitutional, I guess,

 

[progressive hunter]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

I would just ask where in the constitution is that power specified??? as per the 10th amendment

the burden of proof is on those that think it is constitutional


if we have a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, wouldnt that mean my healthcare is my choice to how when and where I receive it??

 

[Meathead]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The penalty can be constitutional if, as Roberts held it, was a tax. Otherwise, it is unconstitutional to compell people to by any product or service.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The government has no authority to force citizens to purchase a product it produces, much less under fear of penalty.

Of course, the penalty was never a tax to start with, but a mandate, regardless of Roberts' creative definition.

 

[forkup]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

I think it was ruled constitutional because it was a tax. When it stopped being a tax, it stopped being constitutional, I guess,

Actually, that's not what is the real problem. He judged ACA unconstitutional because he ruled you couldn't separate ACA from the individual mandate. Because when it was originally set up by congress he contented that they INTENTED the individual mandate to be an integral part of it. That's also the reason why the ruling will likely be overturned in the court of appeals. A judge isn't supposed to judge intent like that, because the current congress kept ACA but set the individual mandate to zero. Clearly showing their intent to keep ACA but get rid of the mandate. He disregarded that. And went with the congress that started ACA and his take on their intent.

 

[forkup]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The government has no authority to force citizens to purchase a product it produces, much less under fear of penalty.

Of course, the penalty was never a tax to start with, but a mandate, regardless of Roberts' creative definition.

Of course they do. All taxes force you to buy services or even products. You think you have a choice whether or not the government buys an aircraft carrier? Or a bridge? Or you receive a pension? Etc.,Etc, And penalties exist for not paying taxes?

 

[caddo kid]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

I was under the impression that SCOTUS ruled it was legal via Congress has the authority for regulation of commerce.

I guess I missed something.

Maybe the judge in Texas had too much bovine excrement for breakfast; they have a lot down there.

He should have stuck with the Wheaties.

 

[Care4all]

the judge was legislating from the bench and it will be over turned

Opinion | What the Lawless Obamacare Ruling Means

I hate Obamacare, but Texas judge's decision on its unconstitutionality is an assault on the rule of law

Why the Texas ruling on Obamacare is on shaky legal ground

 

[progressive hunter]

the judge was legislating from the bench and it will be over ruled

Opinion | What the Lawless Obamacare Ruling Means

I hate Obamacare, but Texas judge's decision on its unconstitutionality is an assault on the rule of law

Why the Texas ruling on Obamacare is on shaky legal ground

WHAT LAW???

no where in the law/constitution is that authority allowed,so it in itself is against the law

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The government has no authority to force citizens to purchase a product it produces, much less under fear of penalty.

Of course, the penalty was never a tax to start with, but a mandate, regardless of Roberts' creative definition.

Of course they do. All taxes force you to buy services or even products. You think you have a choice whether or not the government buys an aircraft carrier? Or a bridge? Or you receive a pension? Etc.,Etc, And their are penalties for not paying taxes aren't there?

Apples and screwdrivers. Congress has the power to levy taxes on matters mandated to it. An aircraft carrier falls within the matter of national defense, mandated by the Constitution. Some things fall under General Welfare but not all things, as the Democrats and Rinos would have you believe.

The Federal government has been overstepping since 1865. It would be highly beneficial for the states to re-assert their constitutional authority under the 10th, and whittle the beast down a bit. The FedGov tends to ultimately fuck up anything it gets its fingers on.

 

[well named]

Cliffs notes are basically

1) The court ruled in 2012 that the individual mandate implemented in the original bill was constitutional because it was essentially just a tax levied against people who didn't buy health insurance. That's why the penalty was paid to the IRS and was reported in tax filings.

2) The GOP congress eliminated the actual penalty (set it to $0) via a reconciliation bill last year. Because of the way reconciliation bills work they didn't actually eliminate the mandate, they just removed the enforcement mechanism.

3) That raises the question of whether the mandate is constitutional under the 2012 ruling, i.e. it's hard to call the mandate a tax if you set the amount to $0. So that's part of what the new case is about.

4) But, challenging the mandate in of itself is kind of moot. After all, the mandate is already not being enforced. What the new suit is really about is to try to argue that if the court has to strike down the individual mandate at $0 then it should strike down the whole law. There's an entire area of jurisprudence connected to the idea of whether parts of a law can be severed from the whole, such that one part may be overturned while preserving the rest. So for example the courts previously overturned the part of the ACA which required states to expand medicaid. The court ruled that the federal government could not require states to expand medicaid, but also ruled that this part of the law was severable, so in overturning that requirement they preserved the law.

5) Most legal commentators I've read think that the $0 mandate is also clearly severable, and in fact congress setting the tax to $0 implies severability very directly: i.e. their intent was obviously to remove the mandate but not repeal the rest of the law, and attempts to repeal the law failed in congress. So it's hard to argue about the intent of severability.

6) But, this judge ruled that it wasn't severable and that the entirety of the law must be overturned. It seems unlikely to me that this part of the ruling will survive review in the appeals process. There are probably a bunch of different possible outcomes, but the most straightforward would just be for the S.C. to agree that the $0 mandate is unenforceable but to uphold the rest of the law.

 

[forkup]

the judge was legislating from the bench and it will be over ruled

Opinion | What the Lawless Obamacare Ruling Means

I hate Obamacare, but Texas judge's decision on its unconstitutionality is an assault on the rule of law

Why the Texas ruling on Obamacare is on shaky legal ground

WHAT LAW???

no where in the law/constitution is that authority allowed,so it in itself is against the law

How a Bill Becomes a Law: The Constitutional Way

 

[toomuchtime_]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

That tax measure eliminated the penalty for not having insurance. An earlier Supreme Court decision upheld the ACA based on the view that the penalty was a tax and thus the law was valid because it relied on appropriate power allowed Congress under the Constitution. O'Connor's decision said that without that penalty, the law no longer met that Constitutional test.

Texas Judge Rules Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional, But Supporters Vow To Appeal

The Constitution is clear that the federal government has only those powers specifically given to it by the Constitution and an earlier SC decision held that Obamacare was constitutional because it was based on a tax, the mandate, that was within the powers of the federal government, so now that the mandate is gone, there is no Constitutional power to justify Obamacare.

Medicare is funded through your fica taxes and Medicaid is essentially a state program partially funded by the federal government.

Since this decision is based on an earlier SC decision on Obamacare, it will be interesting to see what he SC does when it reaches the Court again.

 

[forkup]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The government has no authority to force citizens to purchase a product it produces, much less under fear of penalty.

Of course, the penalty was never a tax to start with, but a mandate, regardless of Roberts' creative definition.

Of course they do. All taxes force you to buy services or even products. You think you have a choice whether or not the government buys an aircraft carrier? Or a bridge? Or you receive a pension? Etc.,Etc, And their are penalties for not paying taxes aren't there?

Apples and screwdrivers. Congress has the power to levy taxes on matters mandated to it. An aircraft carrier falls within the matter of national defense, mandated by the Constitution. Some things fall under General Welfare but not all things, as the Democrats and Rinos would have you believe.

The Federal government has been overstepping since 1865. It would be highly beneficial for the states to re-assert their constitutional authority under the 10th, and whittle the beast down a bit. The FedGov tends to ultimately fuck up anything it gets its fingers on.

So how I read your reply is that you acknowledge the need for taxation and being compelled to pay those taxes. Even in cases of general welfare. You just don't consider health as falling in that category? What to you is general welfare then? To me a healthy population clearly is in the populations best interest.

 

[debbiedowner]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The penalty can be constitutional if, as Roberts held it, was a tax. Otherwise, it is unconstitutional to compell people to by any product or service.

Where is that in the constitution?

 

[Meathead]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The penalty can be constitutional if, as Roberts held it, was a tax. Otherwise, it is unconstitutional to compell people to by any product or service.

Where is that in the constitution?

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution:

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A [of the Internal Revenue Code] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.[48]

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Wikipedia

 

[task0778]

It gets kinda confusing, at least for me. If the appeal process overturns the Texas ruling, then a subsequent Democrat president and Congress could change the $0 tax penalty for the mandate to whatever but something more than zero, true? Could they do that under reconciliation with less than 60 votes in the Senate? IOW, the ACA would live again and probably once again go through all sorts of new changes by the Dems. Might even end up as a UHC program.

BUT - if this ruling is appealed and NOT overturned then the ACA is indeed dead, true? We would have to find a new and hopefully better solution, whatever that might be. Or let the market and the states go about their business and do it piece-meal, like before. In the meantime, what we've got is a program that no one wants except those who get a gov't subsidy to pay for it. Most people that don't have an employer-based plan can't afford it and are leaving by the millions unless they or a family member have a pre-existing condition and have to stick with the ACA. How can we continue to afford that, the taxpayers are essentially forced to foot the bill for those medical bills. I guess that as the recent 2018 elections suggest, that's what people want. But between that and the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the interest on the debt, we're on a fast-moving train to insolvency. At some point, future generations are going to get effed.

 

[debbiedowner]

Cliffs notes are basically

1) The court ruled in 2012 that the individual mandate implemented in the original bill was constitutional because it was essentially just a tax levied against people who didn't buy health insurance. That's why the penalty was paid to the IRS and was reported in tax filings.

2) The GOP congress eliminated the actual penalty (set it to $0) via a reconciliation bill last year. Because of the way reconciliation bills work they didn't actually eliminate the mandate, they just removed the enforcement mechanism.

3) That raises the question of whether the mandate is constitutional under the 2012 ruling, i.e. it's hard to call the mandate a tax if you set the amount to $0. So that's part of what the new case is about.

4) But, challenging the mandate in of itself is kind of moot. After all, the mandate is already not being enforced. What the new suit is really about is to try to argue that if the court has to strike down the individual mandate at $0 then it should strike down the whole law. There's an entire area of jurisprudence connected to the idea of whether parts of a law can be severed from the whole, such that one part may be overturned while preserving the rest. So for example the courts previously overturned the part of the ACA which required states to expand medicaid. The court ruled that the federal government could not require states to expand medicaid, but also ruled that this part of the law was severable, so in overturning that requirement they preserved the law.

5) Most legal commentators I've read think that the $0 mandate is also clearly severable, and in fact congress setting the tax to $0 implies severability very directly: i.e. their intent was obviously to remove the mandate but not repeal the rest of the law, and attempts to repeal the law failed in congress. So it's hard to argue about the intent of severability.

6) But, this judge ruled that it wasn't severable and that the entirety of the law must be overturned. It seems unlikely to me that this part of the ruling will survive review in the appeals process. There are probably a bunch of different possible outcomes, but the most straightforward would just be for the S.C. to agree that the $0 mandate is unenforceable but to uphold the rest of the law.

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The penalty can be constitutional if, as Roberts held it, was a tax. Otherwise, it is unconstitutional to compell people to by any product or service.

Where is that in the constitution?

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution:

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Wikipedia

No, where does it say a part of a law cannot be severed and the remainder stay in place?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Last week a Texas federal judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional because last year the tax cut bill did away with the penalty tax if you didn't buy health care insurance. Which means the ACA may still require you to purchase HCI but has no teeth to enforce it. So, in reality, there is no actual mandate. Is it therefore unconstitutional?

Let's be clear, I never liked the idea in the 1st place; coercing people to buy something they did not want to ought to have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. We would all be better off if the pols quit fighting over a program that sucked from day one, still sucks, and people are leaving it in droves unless the gov't subsidizes most if not all of your costs to use it. It isn't really much more than a big expansion of Medicaid IMHO. But unconstitutional? I got my doubts about that.

The government has no authority to force citizens to purchase a product it produces, much less under fear of penalty.

Of course, the penalty was never a tax to start with, but a mandate, regardless of Roberts' creative definition.

Of course they do. All taxes force you to buy services or even products. You think you have a choice whether or not the government buys an aircraft carrier? Or a bridge? Or you receive a pension? Etc.,Etc, And their are penalties for not paying taxes aren't there?

Apples and screwdrivers. Congress has the power to levy taxes on matters mandated to it. An aircraft carrier falls within the matter of national defense, mandated by the Constitution. Some things fall under General Welfare but not all things, as the Democrats and Rinos would have you believe.

The Federal government has been overstepping since 1865. It would be highly beneficial for the states to re-assert their constitutional authority under the 10th, and whittle the beast down a bit. The FedGov tends to ultimately fuck up anything it gets its fingers on.

So how I read your reply is that you acknowledge the need for taxation and being compelled to pay those taxes. Even in cases of general welfare. You just don't consider health as falling in that category? What to you is general welfare then? To me a healthy population clearly is in the populations best interest.

General welfare provides an environment that benefits all.

Health care is individual welfare, essentially a transfer of wealth from one to another. Congress has no authority to take wealth from one individual, and give it to another individual.