Question for our legal minds on the ACA case (1 Viewer)

[Saint by the Bay]

I'm curious if the SCOTUS could or would issue a ruling that basically says "this is Unconstitutional, but it would be Constitutional if you do x" then set a timeframe for the government to do x?

It seems that throwing it out on Tuesday at 2 PM and having insurance canceled for millions of Americans at 2:01 would be a national disaster. Can the court give the government a period of time to rectify the situation, which means possibly a Biden administration would be the one attempting to address it?

 

[DaveXA]

It’s like the Joker from Dark Knight. It’s like a dog chasing a car. What’s he going to do when he catches it?

Find another car? So I guess the party needs to find another cause.

 

[coldseat]

What is the basis for Plaintiff's (individual) claims? Is it a constitutional violation? If so, it seems that as long as the plaintiff is the subject of the government action - the requirement to purchase - then the Plaintiff would have standing. I am not sure why the absence of a penalty would mean such a plaintiff lacks standing. But I am not at all familiar with the details of the case.

This is what the articles says:

Two individuals joined the lawsuit in the trial court in April 2018, as plaintiffs challenging the ACA.5 These plaintiffs are self-employed residents of Texas who claim that the individual mandate requires them to purchase health insurance that they otherwise would not buy, although there is no penalty if they fail to buy coverage.

This is the reasoning reached in 2-1 party line vote.

The 5th Circuit decided that the both the individual and state plaintiffs have standing to challenge the ACA in court. Standing ensures that federal courts are deciding actual cases or controversies as required by the U.S. Constitution. Standing is essential for the court to have jurisdiction to decide a case and therefore cannot be waived. To establish standing, a party must suffer an injury that is concrete and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and likely to be redressed by a favorable court ruling. The 5th Circuit agreed with the trial court that the individual plaintiffs have standing because they have spent money that they otherwise would not have spent, absent the individual mandate, to purchase health insurance.18 The 5th Circuit also decided that the state plaintiffs have standing because they are incurring costs from the individual mandate from having to verify which state employees have minimum essential coverage.

This is the dissent.

The dissent reached the opposite conclusion, finding that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs has standing to bring the case. According to the dissent, any injury experienced by the individual plaintiffs “is entirely self-inflicted” because “absolutely nothing” will happen to them if they do not purchase insurance to meet the individual mandate now that the penalty is set at zero.20 The dissent also concluded that the state plaintiffs lack standing because they failed to provide evidence showing that “at least some state employees have enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance” or that “anyone has enrolled in their Medicaid programs solely because of the unenforceable coverage requirement.”

The majority ruling is really lacking here. Where's the injury to the plaintiffs? It's imagined and completely self inflicted.

 

[insidejob]

This is what the articles says:


This is the reasoning reached in 2-1 party line vote.


This is the dissent.


The majority ruling is really lacking here. Where's the injury to the plaintiffs? It's imagined and completely self inflicted.

Gotta agree with the dissent here. Maybe if Trump hadn't nixed the mandate they'd have a leg to stand on, but as it is, they don't. bet ya the SC rules in their favor anyway though.

 

[Sandman]

I agree with the dissent that there is no injury here. However, the Republican judges seem to want to find injury. It is a stretch to say that they were forced to buy insurance, but would suffer no consequences if they didn't. The thing is...when you make rulings like that, then tend to turn around and bite you in the butt. If the Democrats start taking over the courts, they will start using this language in matters they did not foresee. It is always dangerous to go against the law and instead to try and make the case fit with how you want it to come out.

 

[JimEverett]

I agree with the dissent that there is no injury here. However, the Republican judges seem to want to find injury. It is a stretch to say that they were forced to buy insurance, but would suffer no consequences if they didn't. The thing is...when you make rulings like that, then tend to turn around and bite you in the butt. If the Democrats start taking over the courts, they will start using this language in matters they did not foresee. It is always dangerous to go against the law and instead to try and make the case fit with how you want it to come out.

So it is preferable that federal courts call people fools for obeying Congressionally passed legislation?

 

[Sandman]

Where did I say that?

 

[JimEverett]

Where did I say that?

You didn't - but isn't the idea that any injury is self-inflicted because the plaintiffs are following the law? That seems more harmful to me than finding an injury, and thus standing, due to following a law that Congress passed.

 

[Sandman]

You didn't - but isn't the idea that any injury is self-inflicted because the plaintiffs are following the law? That seems more harmful to me than finding an injury, and thus standing, due to following a law that Congress passed.

Correct. I didn’t.

As for the rest, there is no injury because there is no penalty. There are no consequences to not purchasing. That is the same as not having to purchase insurance. I see what you are trying to say — they are losing money because they purchased the insurance— but in reality, they did not have to purchase it and no harm would come if they didn’t. I know a lot of people that didn’t and nothing happened to them.

In reality, you are pretending that they have to buy the insurance when you know they don’t. It is a disingenuous argument, and it definitely isn’t more harmful than a legitimate injury.

 

[JimEverett]

Correct. I didn’t.

As for the rest, there is no injury because there is no penalty. There are no consequences to not purchasing. That is the same as not having to purchase insurance. I see what you are trying to say — they are losing money because they purchased the insurance— but in reality, they did not have to purchase it and no harm would come if they didn’t. I know a lot of people that didn’t and nothing happened to them.

In reality, you are pretending that they have to buy the insurance when you know they don’t. It is a disingenuous argument, and it definitely isn’t more harmful than a legitimate injury.

Well, now you are coming close to saying that. You are saying they are penalizing themselves unnecessarily because they are obeying the law. It might be stated in a childish way but you, and the dissent, are saying it is foolish to obey the law - you don't have to because the government isn't going to fine/ tax you if you break the law.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Well, now you are coming close to saying that. You are saying they are penalizing themselves unnecessarily because they are obeying the law. It might be stated in a childish way but you, and the dissent, are saying it is foolish to obey the law - you don't have to because the government isn't going to fine/ tax you if you break the law.

Here’s my question, and it’s an honest question because I don’t know the answer. Does the law actually say you are required to have insurance, or does it just charge you a penalty if you don’t?

That may be parsing language a bit, but it I think it’s important. If the mandate doesn’t actually say you are required to have insurance, then you aren’t breaking the law by not having insurance. If there is no fine associated (which I believe was actually ruled a tax not a fine) then effectively you’re not required to have insurance if you’re not required by the law.

That’s just my layman’s look at it. I’m probably completely off base but I don’t think the law actually requires you have insurance by law as much as it taxes you if you don’t.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Let me try and simplify my point a bit.

if there is a $50 tax for traveling above the speed limit, but you are exempt from that tax if you don’t exceed it, then you aren’t required by law to drive 65. You’re just choosing if you want to pay the tax or not.

if you are required to drive 65, and you are fined if you don’t, then traveling above 65 is breaking the law.

The latter is the world we live in. The question is, which one of those worlds is the insurance mandate in?

 

[JimEverett]

I think this is the language of the section in question:

"(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month."


Immediately following this subsection is another authorizing a penalty for "taxpayers" who do not comply with subsection (a).

Which is slightly interesting that even before the penalty was set to zero there was the possibility of "applicable individuals" to which the mandate applied but who were never going to pay a penalty for noncompliance. Namely, "applicable individuals" who were not taxpayers. Doubt there were many, but I am sure there were at least some.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I think this is the language of the section in question:

"(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month."


Immediately following this subsection is another authorizing a penalty for "taxpayers" who do not comply with subsection (a).

Which is slightly interesting that even before the penalty was set to zero there was the possibility of "applicable individuals" to which the mandate applied but who were never going to pay a penalty for noncompliance. Namely, "applicable individuals" who were not taxpayers. Doubt there were many, but I am sure there were at least some.

My niece was in that category while she was living with us and in school to be a nursing assistant. She was under the income bracket that would allow a subsidy, but since Texas didn’t have exchanges she couldn’t get a subsidy, so she was exempt. I think anyone who would qualify for a subsidy but was in a state that didn’t participate in the exchanges would be exempt. That would probably be a heck of a lot of people actually.

 

[DaveXA]

Here’s my question, and it’s an honest question because I don’t know the answer. Does the law actually say you are required to have insurance, or does it just charge you a penalty if you don’t?

That may be parsing language a bit, but it I think it’s important. If the mandate doesn’t actually say you are required to have insurance, then you aren’t breaking the law by not having insurance. If there is no fine associated (which I believe was actually ruled a tax not a fine) then effectively you’re not required to have insurance if you’re not required by the law.

That’s just my layman’s look at it. I’m probably completely off base but I don’t think the law actually requires you have insurance by law as much as it taxes you if you don’t.

I haven't actually read the law, but it seems to me if we're required to have some sort of health insurance, then it would state that somewhere in the legislation. For example, when doing taxes in the past, there's a section that asks whether you have a qualified health insurance plan, and if not, there used to be a penalty for that. What's interesting is that last tax year, 2019, the same section asked the same question. So it seems the requirement is still there, even if it doesn't have any teeth.

As for the tax vs fine, I don't really see a difference. It's both imo. Trying to make it one or the other is to ignore the characteristics of the rule. It's moot though. Personally, I hate the ACA. I'd rather we go to single payer and be done with it. Half measures is doing our country a disservice. It's one of those things I completely break with the Republicans on. Their positions on health care have been awful and mostly useless.

 

[Sandman]

Well, now you are coming close to saying that. You are saying they are penalizing themselves unnecessarily because they are obeying the law. It might be stated in a childish way but you, and the dissent, are saying it is foolish to obey the law - you don't have to because the government isn't going to fine/ tax you if you break the law.

I am not saying that they are penalizing themselves. They are purchasing health insurance. In return, they get coverage for medical expenses that they normally would not have. You have taken the position that having insurance is a penalty. Anyone that doesn't have insurance knows that is just false--as I did during the summer when I lost my job. You are acting like they are purchasing insurance and getting nothing in return. That just isn't true. They are getting something for their investment. It isn't a penalty. On the other hand, they are not being penalized for not having insurance.

This is a made up injury. "Oh no! I have insurance." You suggest that people are only getting insurance because it is required by law. People purchased insurance before the ACA because it is better than the alternative. Without a penalty, no one is being forced to buy insurance. To pretend otherwise is ignoring reality in order to achieve a desired result.