Yep. Thank you for letting me know I’m not alone in being confused
How many of these families are now working and making more money? Do they even qualify for the freebie anymore? This stuff HAS to be paid for one way or another. It a fact that once the mandate was abolished by the GOP it was a LOT of the people who were paying VERY little for full healthcare that dropped off to say their own money, even when they had kids. Now when little johnny gets hit by a car they scream that they have no healthcare.
How about we get rid of OTHER financial mandates, places where our tax dollars are spent that could easily be spent on healthcare for others.
All I did was put your thread in the #usnews:law-order category because that’s where it belongs and I added some tags to help with search. I didn’t fix your bullshit spelling of unconstitutional.
If you want to see what changed click on the orange pencil in the OP.
Here is a screenshot.
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.
…and Congress repealed the mandate. His declaring it unconstitutional (as seen in the OP link) was unnecessary.
All of the news media streamers on this story say “Judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional…” in those terms or similar.
Even the OP link headline is: Federal judge in Texas rules entire Obama health-care law is unconstitutional
Penalty = Tax
Tax = Constitutional because Congress can levy tax.
This applies to anyone who does not have an ACA policy. How does not having a policy, translate to unconstitutional unless also having an ACA policy is also considered a tax?
The SCOTUS rules on polling. Roberts knows he was wrong.
I appreciate the assistance with the tags.
UnConstitutional is spelled correctly.
I have an issue with being told how to post. I’ll thank everyone not to “correct” me by changing the contents of my posts, which you didn’t do in this case.
The ACA vas valid and constitutional because the penalty was a tax.
That penalty/tax was removed and the judge clearly stated that without the TAX, the ACA was unconstitutional.
It isn’t related to a person without insurance but goes back to the original premise of the constitutionality of the ACA which was based on a tax which is constitutional and within the power of congress.
The tax was removed by congress and the premise for the constitutionality of the ACA invalidated.
It violates the origination clause.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
The courts played games to get the outcome they wanted. Motivated reasoning.
Oh and the SCOTUS can kiss my ass. I never agreed to be ruled by 9 old lawyers in bathrobes.
Thank you for your patience LouMan. This is one of the reasons I love this board. Instead of being patronized or ridiculed, people (like you) are sincerely willing to offer help to each other.
So, in essence, the constitutionality of the ACA hinges upon the penalty being a tax?
Without the penalty being a tax the entire requirement becomes unconstitutional?
The flimsy/shakey ground the ACA was built upon is what I cannot wrap my mind around. That is the equivalent of building a two story home on a cardboard foundation.
It’s a moot point. The individual mandate was removed by Congress.
Roberts and the majority on the SCOTUS disagree, and they are (to use Bush 43’s phrase) the deciders. But as I said, the point is moot because the mandate no longer exists.
You are being by far too obtuse. I’m not sure I understand how you really feel about this
It’s not moot. The libs are going to put it back.
There you go…
If you remember prior to passage of the ACA the democrats included a penalty for those not purchasing insurance. Thy didn’t want to call it a tax as it was a negative connotation connected to the ACA.
In 2010 the penalty was ruled to be a tax by the SOCTUS validating the constitutionality of the law as congress can levy taxes constitutionally. Hence they now have a tax on non participants in the ACA.
Some still refer to the tax as a penalty as that is what it was originally called. The SCOTUS changed the penalty to a tax.
Fast forward to the decision: The court ruled that it is now unconstitutional as the tax was eliminated and the ACA was judged constitutional because of the tax.
The ACA was a horrible over reach of government power.
Always remember the ACA wasn’t;t really a healthcare law but a framework law which was filled out by unelected government workers in HHS. Congress had zero to do with what was covered and what wasn’t covered. Example, free BC pills, a product of HHS interpretation.
The can try. It will be a total waste of their time as the House Majority Party. It will never be reimplemented into the ACA.
That was never up for adjudication.