I don't understand the Texas judge's reasoning on ACA

[CriticalThought]

1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0? Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?

 

[99percenter]

1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0? Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?

Clearly an activist ruling.

 

[TurtleDude]

Clearly an activist ruling.

actually the activist ruling was Roberts trying to be clever and rejecting the Obama argument that the AHCA was not a Tax and finding it was. Now that the one leg upon which Roberts based his nonsense on is gone, the argument collapses

 

[99percenter]

actually the activist ruling was Roberts trying to be clever and rejecting the Obama argument that the AHCA was not a Tax and finding it was. Now that the one leg upon which Roberts based his nonsense on is gone, the argument collapses

Let's focus on the ruling that this thread is about. It is clearly an activist ruling.

 

[TurtleDude]

Let's focus on the ruling that this thread is about. It is clearly an activist ruling.

how so-if the part of the law that allowed Roberts to claim it was a tax no longer exists, then the ruling that upheld it no longer applies

 

[CriticalThought]

how so-if the part of the law that allowed Roberts to claim it was a tax no longer exists, then the ruling that upheld it no longer applies

They didn't repeal the tax, they lowered it to 0. It is a tax cut, not a tax repeal.

 

[99percenter]

how so-if the part of the law that allowed Roberts to claim it was a tax no longer exists, then the ruling that upheld it no longer applies

They actually never repealed it. There is still a mandate. The gop just set the tax penalty to 0. If they set it to 99 cents would it have been constitutional?

 

[Perotista]

1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0? Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?

I don't know. What is strange about the initial ruling was the Obama administration declared time and time again that the mandate wasn't a tax, until it was ruled so by Roberts. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm out of my league on this one. Fees as I understand it, can be set, up or down or to zero by the organization involved in administrating the program. Is a fee a tax, apparently so as decided by the SCOTUS or at least by Roberts.

As I understand it, the remaining 8 judges decided whether the ACA was constitutional or not on other grounds. Only Roberts in his deciding vote declared the fee a tax. So by one judge, the deciding judge coming down on the fee as a tax, that made the ACA constitutional. It'll be interesting on how this all plays out.

 

[Greenbeard]

Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?

There doesn't need to be a tax, there simply needs to be an absence of sanctions for choosing to go uninsured (as sanctions on uninsurance would indicate Congress is simply commanding people to get insurance). Per Roberts:

While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.

Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws.

It's still perfectly legal to go without insurance, always has been. That judge in Texas would have you believe that by lowering the tax penalty to zero, Congress in 2017 intended to make going uninsured (or at least lacking minimum essential coverage) illegal for the first time ever. That, of course, is plainly false.

During a House floor speech Tuesday, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cast the mandate repeal as "finally restoring the freedom to make your own health-care choices."

“By repealing the individual mandate at the heart of ObamaCare, we are giving back the freedom and the flexibility to buy the health care that's right for you and your family," he said.

 

[TurtleDude]

They didn't repeal the tax, they lowered it to 0. It is a tax cut, not a tax repeal.

the reasoning of Roberts was dubious given the Obama Administration claimed it wasn't a tax. Lowering it to zero means there is no tax and thus the argument of Roberts no longer has validity

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know. What is strange about the initial ruling was the Obama administration declared time and time again that the mandate wasn't a tax, until it was ruled so by Roberts. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm out of my league on this one. Fees as I understand it, can be set, up or down or to zero by the organization involved in administrating the program. Is a fee a tax, apparently so as decided by the SCOTUS or at least by Roberts.

As I understand it, the remaining 8 judges decided whether the ACA was constitutional or not on other grounds. Only Roberts in his deciding vote declared the fee a tax. So by one judge, the deciding judge coming down on the fee as a tax, that made the ACA constitutional. It'll be interesting on how this all plays out.

the leftwing banc claimed that the commerce clause allowed the AHCA. Five judges said NO but Roberts-trying to be clever and ingratiate himself to the mainly leftwing legal scholarship community, pretended it was a tax

 

[TurtleDude]

They actually never repealed it. There is still a mandate. The gop just set the tax penalty to 0. If they set it to 99 cents would it have been constitutional?

more so than 0--you being very conservative, should find fault with the reasoning of 4/5 in the majority

 

[Greenbeard]

the reasoning of Roberts was dubious given the Obama Administration claimed it wasn't a tax. Lowering it to zero means there is no tax and thus the argument of Roberts no longer has validity

Not really.

Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.

As of this year, they may now lawfully forgo health insurance and their tax burden doesn't change one iota. Roberts' argument is fine.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not really.



As of this year, they may now lawfully forgo health insurance and their tax burden doesn't change one iota. Roberts' argument is fine.

I guess we will see what happens won't we

 

[Hedgology]

They didn't repeal the tax, they lowered it to 0. It is a tax cut, not a tax repeal.

A tax of 0% means they repealed the tax.

 

[CriticalThought]

A tax of 0% means they repealed the tax.

It can be raised again. It is still there, they just aren't collecting on it.

 

[Hedgology]

It can be raised again. It is still there, they just aren't collecting on it.

If they're not collecting a tax, then there is no tax. When they start collecting taxes, it's referring to as leving.

 

[Octavian]

1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0? Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?

The GOP controlled Congress has the same right to repeal a law as the Democrats had back in 2010 to pass a law (the ACA). There is no legal distinction made because of which party controlled the Congress.

The US Congress effectively repealed the part of the ACA which made it a tax (enforcing the individual mandate with a monetary penalty) by removing the penalty. Since the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the law on the basis that it was a tax, it is now Unconstitutional because it is no longer a tax.

The Congress, as outlined in the Constitution, has the power to create taxes. The Congress does not have the power to arbtitrarily require that citizens purchase health insurance, and the Supreme Court ruled as such in approving the ACA back in 2013.

Whether Republicans intended to or not, by repealing the individual mandate penalty, they repealed the ACA. The Court should follow its own reasoning from 2013 and find the law now Unconstitutional and effectively repealed. If the Congress wants to change that, they can pass the individual mandate penalty again, along with the rest of the ACA (no chance during the Trump years).

 

[Obscurity]

Let's focus on the ruling that this thread is about. It is clearly an activist ruling.

So whenever a judge makes a ruling you guys dislike, you use the term activist ruling? That it?

 

[Myview]

1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0? Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?

When significant numbers of people will have their life up ended or threatened by parties on ideological grounds I think the SCOTUS will look for ways to up hold it until something better comes into being. I think the fact the mandate wasn't completely eliminated; just reduced to 0 has significance. This mandate still exists so the potential to be taxed still exists. The entire law cannot be brought down if the mandate is not completely eliminated. I don't believe the SCOTUS will up hold the lower courts ruling. I think the judge in Texas allowed his political ideology to out weigh human beings. This has been my beef against Conservatives in Congress from the beginning of the ACA. They obviously had rather have nothing than something.

 

[Greenbeard]

Whether Republicans intended to or not, by repealing the individual mandate penalty, they repealed the ACA. The Court should follow its own reasoning from 2013 and find the law now Unconstitutional and effectively repealed. If the Congress wants to change that, they can pass the individual mandate penalty again, along with the rest of the ACA (no chance during the Trump years).

The intent of Congress was clearly to keep the rest of the ACA in place without an individual mandate. Even if §5000A were struck down (and the case for the doing so is weak), it should be severed from the rest of the ACA. Anything else is an absurd degree of judicial activism.

 

[Harshaw]

1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0?

No. The argument that the mandate penalty was a tax was how Roberts justified finding it constitutional, otherwise Congress didn't have the power to compel anyone to buy insurance (under the Commerce Clause or any other provision). Taxing, he said, is within the power of Congress, and because he called the penalty a tax, it stood.

Any actual tax -- and the mandate penalty was not intended as a tax; it was just how Roberts justified it -- stands on its own as a use of the tax power. The same analysis does not apply at all.

 

[Greenbeard]

No. The argument that the mandate penalty was a tax was how Roberts justified finding it constitutional, otherwise Congress didn't have the power to compel anyone to buy insurance (under the Commerce Clause or any other provision). Taxing, he said, is within the power of Congress, and because he called the penalty a tax, it stood.

Any actual tax -- and the mandate penalty was not intended as a tax; it was just how Roberts justified it -- stands on its own as a use of the tax power. The same analysis does not apply at all.

The same analysis does apply. Roberts found that Congress wasn't compelling anyone to buy insurance. It was perfectly lawful to go without insurance under the ACA. Congress was, however, taxing people who made that choice, which they are able to do.

Now Congress is not compelling anyone to buy insurance (it's still perfectly legal to go without insurance), and they're no longer taxing people who choose to go without insurance.

There's no there there.

 

[Harshaw]

The same analysis does apply. Roberts found that Congress wasn't compelling anyone to buy insurance. It was perfectly lawful to go without insurance under the ACA. Congress was, however, taxing people who made that choice, which they are able to do.

Now Congress is not compelling anyone to buy insurance (it's still perfectly legal to go without insurance), and they're no longer taxing people who choose to go without insurance.

There's no there there.

I didn't say there was a "there there"; I explained why the reasoning wouldn't apply to any tax. You should read what I wrote more carefully, because you have thoroughly misunderstood it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The same analysis does apply. Roberts found that Congress wasn't compelling anyone to buy insurance. It was perfectly lawful to go without insurance under the ACA. Congress was, however, taxing people who made that choice, which they are able to do.

It wasn't a "tax" it was a fine. The government fines people for not doing what it tells you to do. It does not tax you for not doing what it tells you to do. Even Obama said it wasn't a tax. If you drive over the speed limit you are not taxed, you're fined. If you drive the wrong way on a one way street you are fined, not taxed. Under the ACA mandate if you did not buy insurance you were fined. Anyone claiming that it was a "tax" is a liar. And yes, that includes Roberts.