What Do People Think About the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Affordable Care Act?

What Do People Think About the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Affordable Care Act?

What do people think about the supreme courtamp39s ruling on the affordable care act

A Supreme Court ruling that declared the individual mandate unconstitutional would be devastating for millions of people; however, they have concluded that individuals and states challenging it have failed to prove standing for legal challenge against it.

Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined Justice Stephen Breyer to uphold key provisions of health care law protecting preexisting conditions.

I think it’s a good decision.

The court has ruled that those challenging the Affordable Care Act lacked standing, effectively ending their lawsuit and leaving the ACA intact. This was a victory for Democrats and revealed some constraints on federal power that should remain with justices. This decision examines whether Congress can use its authority to regulate interstate commerce to require everyone to purchase health insurance coverage, which Ginsburg opposed. A majority of justices (excluding Ginsburg ) ruled against such use of power by Congress. The chief justice’s dissenting opinion was extremely critical of the majority decision, without directly criticizing it. He claimed that it undermines other branches of federal government as well as overlooking that coverage penalty cost isn’t tax and therefore does not qualify as “mandate”.

The court ruled that the individual mandate can be separated from other aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but left in place provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions and capping premium increases for older people. KFF Tracking Polls have found that most Americans still favor and worry about its future impact on them personally.

I think it’s a bad decision.

The Court did not reach the merits of the case and therefore could not reach a conclusion as to whether a zero dollar mandate violated constitutional standards. Instead, it found that neither individual filing the lawsuit nor Republican states joining were entitled to challenge the law as their injuries are unconnected with eliminating penalties directly, nor were their injuries separable from other aspects of ACA.

This decision underscores that the Affordable Care Act will remain intact even as Democrats acknowledge its shortcomings, and reduces its political power among Republicans who cannot complete repeal of it.

This week’s case involved the individual mandate, an integral provision of the Affordable Care Act which mandates people to purchase health insurance or face penalties. Chief Justice Roberts upheld this provision in 2012 on grounds that Congress could impose it under its power to regulate interstate commerce; however, Justices who heard this week’s appeals agreed with conservative justices who claimed that its presence amounted to taxation – while ruling that severing penalty from other parts of ACA would render it inapplicable and therefore unenforceable.

I think it’s a mixed decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to strike down the Affordable Care Act is welcome news for millions of people who now have health coverage, but this does not indicate its safety from future challenges; court has yet to rule on some provisions’ legality; lawsuits could raise this question again in future lawsuits.

The case began when two individuals and a group of Republican-led states challenged the individual mandate, the requirement that every American purchase health insurance. Their argument was that since Congress lowered penalties for not having insurance to zero, that meant its constitutional underpinning had been lost; hence it should be repealed along with other key aspects of law such as protections against insurers denying coverage or charging more due to preexisting conditions.

But Justices Breyer and Ginsburg joined with four liberal justices to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with Alito and Gorsuch dissensing. Alito would have held that state plaintiffs had standing and could challenge some ACA provisions under his interpretation of standing law from NFIB; further, he believed they had legitimate complaints regarding costs associated with the law itself beyond just penalty-less mandate itself.

You May Also Like

About the Author: Raymond Donovan