
Many Americans depend on the Affordable Care Act for health coverage, particularly its provisions protecting those with preexisting conditions.
In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare by ruling its financial penalty for not having insurance a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing powers. But in 2017, Republican-backed tax legislation eliminated this penalty, prompting states to sue.
What is Obamacare?
The Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, is an expansive health insurance plan with many provisions, such as mandating insurance providers to include 10 essential benefits and permitting children to remain covered under their parents’ coverage until age 26. These laws have helped substantially decrease the number of uninsured Americans and thus benefiting all.
An integral component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a health insurance mandate requiring people to have coverage or face penalties. A federal judge recently found this provision of law unconstitutional; yet, to everyone’s surprise, Trump’s Justice Department chose not to defend it in court.
The Supreme Court agreed with states by striking down only the tax penalty while upholding other parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion; Justice Anthony Kennedy also supported saving it; this ruling ensures that millions will continue benefitting from it in years to come.
What is the Individual Mandate?
The Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, known as the shared responsibility provision, required most Americans to carry health insurance or face a financial penalty assessed on your state or federal tax returns. Congress later passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which effectively repealed this penalty beginning January 2019.
Insurance works by pooling together people who pay premiums in order to offset claims filed by those with more costly conditions. When healthy people join a risk pool, everyone benefits more cost effectively; thus the ACA’s individual mandate was designed to make sure more healthy Americans were covered under coverage.
Although not impacting everyone, the mandate is essential to the affordability of the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and other insurance options for those without employer-provided coverage or who don’t qualify for Medicaid. Without it, the risk pool would shrink over time leading to higher premiums across all policy holders.
What is the penalty for not having health insurance?
Forgoing health insurance entails a fee based on your income and family size; either a flat fee of 2.5% of income, adjusted annually to account for inflation; you may even qualify for religious conscience exemption or hardship waivers depending on these factors.
President Trump campaigned on the promise to repeal and replace it with something else, however Congress did not pass his bill to do so and the individual mandate remains part of law.
The penalty aims to ensure younger, healthier individuals remain covered so that older and sicker individuals receive adequate health coverage. Furthermore, it prevents insurers from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions and charging more. Although this component of ACA law is vitally important, other aspects also play an essential role in safeguarding health insurance rights.
What is the law of the land?
Law of the Land refers to all valid laws that exist within any particular country or jurisdiction at a given moment in time, whether enacted by Congress, state legislatures, local governments or even the supreme court.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest authority in American law and serves as an ultimate arbiter on matters pertaining to constitutional and federal law. Comprised of nine justices nominated by President and confirmed by Senate, they serve for life unless impeached or charged with violating criminal statutes.
The Supreme Court reviews only a fraction of cases brought before it each year, such as those concerning ambassadors and other public ministers as well as consuls. It has original jurisdiction over such cases while also having appellate jurisdiction for all other cases involving either constitutional or federal law issues.