CDZ Why is the ACA unconstitutional?

[debbiedowner]

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.

Yes, if it's upheld all the way and to include the SCOTUS it is dead.

 

[Meathead]

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?

FFS! It is not that complicated. Roberts defined it as a tax and taxes are levied and can be withdrawn by government. Are you being delibertely obtuse or plainly stupid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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??

Art. I, sec. 8, clause 1.

Your final paragraph is easily refuted when the facts tell us otherwise.

Q. Would you send you child into a school room when you knew other children had never been inoculated for serious and sometimes fatal diseases easily transmitted to others.

 

[Care4all]

The Republican activist Judge simply over reached and has tried to legislate from the bench....

the Mandate can be removed and the rest of the law is still constitutional...

the 26 year olds can still stay on their parents plan, the pre-existing condition coverage is still in place, the lifetime coverage is still in place, the lifetime caps are still removed, the medicaid expansion is still in place for those who chose to expand....

None of those things were removed by congress when they recently legislated on this in 2017 and dropped the tax penalty for the mandate.

this judge unjustly and unlawfully, over reached his duty as a Judge....

 

[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.

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.

Being healthy benefits all to. I can give you a good anecdote to that point. My brother in law got hit by a car about 10 years ago.This was pre ACA and he wasn't insured. His shoulder was shattered and because he wasn't insured the reconstructive surgery needed to restore near full mobility wasn't performed because it was deemed an elective. So what was a contributing member of society became someone who was crippled. The same can be said for every person who doesn't get the treatment he or she needs to be able to contribute. How is that NOT general welfare?

 

[progressive hunter]

The Republican activist Judge simply over reached and has tried to legislate from the bench....

the Mandate can be removed and the rest of the law is still constitutional...

the 26 year olds can still stay on their parents plan, the pre-existing condition coverage is still in place, the lifetime coverage is still in place, the lifetime caps are still removed, the medicaid expansion is still in place for those who chose to expand....

None of those things were removed by congress when they recently legislated on this in 2017 and dropped the tax penalty for the mandate.

this judge unjustly and unlawfully, over reached his duty as a Judge....

sorry but none of the law is constitutional...unless you can point out in the constitution the feds have authority over my private life

 

[Care4all]

The Republican activist Judge simply over reached and has tried to legislate from the bench....

the Mandate can be removed and the rest of the law is still constitutional...

the 26 year olds can still stay on their parents plan, the pre-existing condition coverage is still in place, the lifetime coverage is still in place, the lifetime caps are still removed, the medicaid expansion is still in place for those who chose to expand....

None of those things were removed by congress when they recently legislated on this in 2017 and dropped the tax penalty for the mandate.

this judge unjustly and unlawfully, over reached his duty as a Judge....

sorry but none of the law is constitutional...unless you can point out in the constitution the feds have authority over my private life

sorry, the courts do not agree with you!

 

[progressive hunter]

The Republican activist Judge simply over reached and has tried to legislate from the bench....

the Mandate can be removed and the rest of the law is still constitutional...

the 26 year olds can still stay on their parents plan, the pre-existing condition coverage is still in place, the lifetime coverage is still in place, the lifetime caps are still removed, the medicaid expansion is still in place for those who chose to expand....

None of those things were removed by congress when they recently legislated on this in 2017 and dropped the tax penalty for the mandate.

this judge unjustly and unlawfully, over reached his duty as a Judge....

sorry but none of the law is constitutional...unless you can point out in the constitution the feds have authority over my private life

sorry, the courts do not agree with you!

but the constitution does,,

the courts are full of democrat and republican traitors hell bent on destroying freedom

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Republican activist Judge simply over reached and has tried to legislate from the bench....

the Mandate can be removed and the rest of the law is still constitutional...

the 26 year olds can still stay on their parents plan, the pre-existing condition coverage is still in place, the lifetime coverage is still in place, the lifetime caps are still removed, the medicaid expansion is still in place for those who chose to expand....

None of those things were removed by congress when they recently legislated on this in 2017 and dropped the tax penalty for the mandate.

this judge unjustly and unlawfully, over reached his duty as a Judge....

sorry but none of the law is constitutional...unless you can point out in the constitution the feds have authority over my private life

sorry, the courts do not agree with you!

In fact, that's not true. This is the first challenge to the Constitutionality of Obamacare since the mandate was eliminated. The issue is that the Constitution restricts the actions of the federal government to those powers specifically given to it in the Constitution, and an earlier SC decision held that Obamacare was Constitutional because the mandate was a tax and the Constitution gave the federal government the power to tax and therefore Obamacare was Constitutional because it is based on a tax.

The federal government is not allowed to spend any money or pass any regulations unless it is in the exercise of one of the powers the Constitution has given it no matter how good an idea it wants to spend the money or pass the regulations for. Now that the mandate, a tax, is gone, the supporters of Obamacare were unable to cite any other Constitutional authority for the federal government to continue Obamacare and the judge ruled, it is unconstitutional.

Since the judge's decision is based squarely on an earlier SC decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it is unlikely to be overturned on appeal unless its supporters can cite some other Constitutional authority for it to continue.

 

[debbiedowner]

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

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

In other words, you have no idea how he arrived at his decision.

 

[debbiedowner]

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

In other words, you have no idea how he arrived at his decision.

In other words you did not read the article. You posted within a minute of my post. Yes, I know why he did it but he is wrong.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

In other words, you have no idea how he arrived at his decision.

In other words you did not read the article. You posted within a minute of my post. Yes, I know why he did it but he is wrong.

I read the article and it misses the point of the judge's decision. The Constitution restricts the powers of the federal government to those that are specifically given to it by the Constitution, and the federal government may not spend money or pass or enforce regulations unless it is in the exercise of one of those powers. In an earlier court challenge to the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the SC had held that the federal government was exercising its power to levy and collect taxes in passing Obamacare, since it called the mandate a tax, but without the mandate, what Constitutional authority did the federal government have to continue to enforce Obamacare? At the trial, none of the supporters of Obamacare was able to cite another Constitutional authority to continue Obamacare with the mandate gover, so the judge ruled the federal government lacked Constitutional authority to continue it and the law was therefore unconstitutional. The author of the article sees everything but the central Constitutional issue the judge addressed in his decision.

 

[sartre play]

Have been just ranting about everything to day, with out really enough information to make a clear point. now I know how some of you feel, its just so frustrating that we can't seem to manage a single step closer together on anything. more & more time & money battling everything out in court. will wait this one out.