ACA suvives again, lawsuit tossed due to lack of standing

It's too bad they ruled on just the standing and could not rule on the constitutionality issue (since they ruled plaintiffs had no standing). Without that issue resolved, it seems these cases will keep coming.
 
That should settle it then. I said it will be settle months ago, and glad it did.
 
This may give momentum for a tweaking and improving the ACA, and fixing the ACA cliff permanently. They did not address the constitutionality, which means other plaintiffs may come forward, but it will take several years for cases to wind their way to the Supreme Court.
 
Right - I don't think it's going to be so easy. Showing standing is important and apparently not very easy, but in November members of the Supreme Court also expressed strong skepticism that throwing out the entire ACA made any sense at all even if the mandate going to zero was a problem.

And it will take years again, hopefully, while I keep getting closer to 65.
 
Last edited:
Very happy about this since I and millions of others would likely go without coverage without the ACA subsidies.
 
This is good news for so many people in this country.
 
audreyh1 said:
Right - I don't think it's going to be so easy. Showing standing is important and apparently not very easy, but in November members of the Supreme Court also expressed strong skepticism that throwing out the entire ACA made any sense at all even if the mandate going to zero was a problem.

And it will take years again, hopefully, while I keep getting closer to 65.
Click to expand...

My thought too. If years again, by that time I'd be thinking about what medicare supplement plan to choose :popcorn:.
 
RetireeRobert said:
That settles nothing, it was only about standing of the entities bringing this particular lawsuit. Other cases raising similar issues will be brought by parties with unquestionable standing.
Click to expand...
If individuals and states don't, who on earth would have "unquestionable standing?" In order to have standing, it seems you have to be harmed by the imposition of a penalty of $0.00. How is anyone harmed by that?
 
EastWest Gal said:
This may give momentum for a tweaking and improving the ACA, and fixing the ACA cliff permanently. They did not address the constitutionality, which means other plaintiffs may come forward, but it will take several years for cases to wind their way to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Hoping they fix the family glitch...we pay 5x as much for employee share of a family plan (employee-only coverage: employee premium is zero) as we would for an ACA plan.
 
EastWest Gal said:
This may give momentum for a tweaking and improving the ACA, and fixing the ACA cliff permanently. They did not address the constitutionality, which means other plaintiffs may come forward, but it will take several years for cases to wind their way to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, could an executive order institute a $1 penalty?
 
Ok sure technically it's not settled, but it's more settled than it was yesterday:

No other similar challenge on the mandate will get this far again, as long as it remains a $0 penalty. Some other challenge will have to materialize that addresses the constitutionality of some facet of the law.

And that will at very least take time, at least another 2-3 years.
 
audreyh1 said:
Right - I don't think it's going to be so easy. Showing standing is important and apparently not very easy, but in November members of the Supreme Court also expressed strong skepticism that throwing out the entire ACA made any sense at all even if the mandate going to zero was a problem.

And it will take years again, hopefully, while I keep getting closer to 65.
Click to expand...

Yup, currently 61, so hoping it will last at least until turning 65.
 
They should now start working on tweaking the current law and reduce the large differences in cost between states.
 
Whisper66 said:
It's too bad they ruled on just the standing and could not rule on the constitutionality issue (since they ruled plaintiffs had no standing). Without that issue resolved, it seems these cases will keep coming.
Click to expand...


According to the talking heads on TV it is settled... nobody has standing so nobody can bring up a lawsuit based on the mandate to have insurance..


Now, if someone can come up with a different part of the law and show harm due to that then they can challenge....



One talking head said that he believes the ACA is now settled as the law of the land... that all future suits will be concerning what it does or does not do... but to be 'overturned' it will have to be legislatively to do it...
 
Good news for many. This is my last year for ACA and I'm thankful it's available. Hope it stays for many years.
 
Ian S said:
If individuals and states don't, who on earth would have "unquestionable standing?" In order to have standing, it seems you have to be harmed by the imposition of a penalty of $0.00. How is anyone harmed by that?
Click to expand...
Good point!
 
Dtail said:
Yup, currently 61, so hoping it will last at least until turning 65.
Click to expand...

We’re the same age. I turn 62 later this year, so my countdown is about 3.5 years, just before the next election.

Fingers crossed!!
 
Ian S said:
If individuals and states don't, who on earth would have "unquestionable standing?" In order to have standing, it seems you have to be harmed by the imposition of a penalty of $0.00. How is anyone harmed by that?
Click to expand...

Indeed. The majority opinion involves some very contorted and seemingly circular reasoning, mixing together the time period where the penalty existed with the time period now that it doesn't with issues of standing, severability, and Constitutionality. It sounds learned, but it also sounds convoluted and tortured to me.

Justice Alito's dissent, which starts on page 26 of the document linked in the OP, is far more straightforward and readable. It also cites from at least some of the same cases that the majority opinion does. His conclusion:

"No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats. A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. So a tax that does not tax is allowed to stand and support one of the biggest Government programs in our Nation’s history. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again.
But I must respectfully dissent."
 
SecondCor521 said:
Indeed. The majority opinion involves some very contorted and seemingly circular reasoning, mixing together the time period where the penalty existed with the time period now that it doesn't with issues of standing, severability, and Constitutionality. It sounds learned, but it also sounds convoluted and tortured to me.
Click to expand...

What is circular and contorted about this https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-again-leaves-affordable-care-act-in-place/
The individual plaintiffs, Breyer explained, contended that they are harmed, and therefore have a right to sue, because they have to pay each month for health insurance to comply with the mandate. The problem with that argument, Breyer reasoned, is that although the ACA instructs them to obtain health insurance, the Internal Revenue Service can no longer impose a penalty on taxpayers who fail to obtain insurance – and there is no other government action connected to the harm that the individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered, a key requirement for standing.
Click to expand...
The challengers need to show financial harm, and they can’t because there no longer is a penalty for not enrolling.
 
MichaelB said:
What is circular and contorted about this https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-again-leaves-affordable-care-act-in-place/

The challengers need to show financial harm, and they can’t because there no longer is a penalty for not enrolling.
Click to expand...

Your first statement is a straw man argument. You're quoting from an article about the opinion which I had not read when I wrote my post; my comments were related to the SC opinion itself, which is a different document.

As for standing, I would agree with you on the individuals. The plaintiff states, however, still have the regulatory and financial burdens of complying with the ACA irrespective of whether the penalty is zero. These costs and harms are delineated in the dissent. So I think the 18 states' standing argument was strong.

I just stated my opinion after reading (most but not all of) the SC opinion text. You are certainly welcome to your own opinion.
 
I’m not advocating for or against, just responding to some of the comments in this thread. The states may have ACA regulatory costs, but they are not related to the case before the court. They too needed to show harm resulting from the elimination of the mandate. 7 of the 9 justices agreed on this opinion, which is pretty high and denotes (IMHO) a pretty solid conclusion. I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll step back now.

I do know one lawyer who posts here - and has not shared a view on this decision. The rest of us are ... not lawyers.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
ACA lawsuit, ACA saved by the CARES Act?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Poopycat
P
MichaelB
SCOTUS announced it will hear ACA case
Replies
6
Views
1K
GTFan
GTFan
MichaelB
  • Locked
Useful links to 2017 Health Care Reform
Replies
0
Views
5K
MichaelB
MichaelB
N
prediction of 2/27/07
Replies
21
Views
5K
newyorklady
N

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom