After the ACA was originally passed 2010, it was challenged on constitutional grounds. It went to SCOTUS in 2012 (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). In that case the court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the Individual Mandate was a constitutional and valid use of Congress' taxation powers. The law survived the constitutional challenge.
In 2017 a subsequent (now GOP controlled congress) zeroed out the individual mandate penalty.
The individual mandate is now being challenged on constitutional grounds. The logic goes that, since there is no penalty there is no taxation. If there is no taxation, the individual mandate cannot be a constitutional under Congress' taxation powers. I'm fine with all of that.
Here's now the part that I find absurd:
The argument that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA based on the way it was amended by the 2017 Congress. Therefore, since the IM is no longer constitutional the entire ACA must fall.
The reason I find it absurd is it relies on speech and debate from the original passage of the ACA which argued that the individual mandate was required for the law to function. However, a subsequent congress deliberately chose to zero out the individual mandate without eliminating the law. The subsequent congress' decision making overrides the decision that the congress that passed the ACA. The 2017 Congress very deliberately made the individual mandate completely nonfunctional, while leaving the rest of the law in place.
TL;DR
- 2010 Congress passes the ACA with the Individual Mandate
- 2012 SCOTUS rules it constitutional
- 2017 Congress zeroes out the Individual Mandate
- The argument now is that the 2010 Congress thought the ACA required the IM to function, ignoring that the 2017 Congress very obviously decided that the ACA didn't require the IM to function.
To me there's just no way to square that circle. The 2017 Congress' decision overrides the 2010 Congress' decision.
-----
Finally, logically I agree with you and I agree with the 2010 Congress. The Individual Mandate is necessary for the ACA to function the way it was originally designed. The ACA is a better, more functional, law with the individual mandate in place. I disagreed with the 2017 Congress' decision to remove the mandate.
But that's no longer relevant. The question now is, is the IM necessary for the ACA to function the way the 2017 Congress amended it to function. The answer—since they repealed the individual mandate—is clearly "no".
I disagree that the IM is required for the ACA, because insurance companies now have a common enrollment period 1 time per year to change or obtain insurance, unless there are special circumstances.
The argument for the IM was that people would remain uninsured until they got sick, then go buy insurance. Or, would get crappy+cheap insurance until they got sick and then get good insurance to cover their sickness.
However, neither of those work because there is still an average 6-month waiting period before a person can obtain or change insurance, just like when you could obtain insurance anytime during the year, but there was a 6-month wait on PE conditions.
They didn't have the political ability to do so. They tried to do exactly that, though.
They campaigned on repealing the bill, but replacing it with an alternative (supposed "repeal and replace"). The replacement never materialized (and, to my knowledge, still hasn't a decade after the ACA went into effect). That said, they pressed forward with an attempt to repeal the bill without replacing it (promising to repeal it at a future date).
The House passed a repeal of the ACA (it was a partial repeal, because they were using the reconciliation process of the Senate to avoid the filibuster so it wasn't a total repeal, but it would have eliminated most of the provisions of the ACA.
The House of Representatives passed their repeal bill on May 4, 2017. The Senate attempted to pass their version of the repeal bill (a different bill, but substantively similar) on July 27, 2017. The bill failed in the Senate by a single vote, 49-51 (if it had ended in a tie the Vice President would've broken the tie and assuredly would have voted to pass the bill). 3 members of the Republican party broke ranks to vote against the bill: Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and John McCain.
McCain was the last to vote against the bill. It was an extremely dramatic moment, as the voting was held open for an extended amount of time while the GOP lobbied McCain hard to pass the bill. Ultimately, he voted "No" in a dramatic fashion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT2pp_KrJGg), and the repeal bill failed in the Senate.
I was watching the Senate vote at the time and it was an incredibly tense and anxious moment. I cannot describe the relief I felt when McCain turned his thumb down and said "no" in that video above. It was a truly shocking moment, and one I'll probably remember for the rest of my life.
So, they tried, but they didn't have the votes.
After failing to repeal the full bill, they proceeded to pass the bill that zeroed out the individual mandate. That was much easier for them to get their caucus on board with, as the mandate was very unpopular with the base of the republican party.
After the ACA was originally passed 2010, it was challenged on constitutional grounds. It went to SCOTUS in 2012 (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). In that case the court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the Individual Mandate was a constitutional and valid use of Congress' taxation powers. The law survived the constitutional challenge.
In 2017 a subsequent (now GOP controlled congress) zeroed out the individual mandate penalty.
The individual mandate is now being challenged on constitutional grounds. The logic goes that, since there is no penalty there is no taxation. If there is no taxation, the individual mandate cannot be a constitutional under Congress' taxation powers. I'm fine with all of that.
Here's now the part that I find absurd:
The argument that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA based on the way it was amended by the 2017 Congress. Therefore, since the IM is no longer constitutional the entire ACA must fall.
The reason I find it absurd is it relies on speech and debate from the original passage of the ACA which argued that the individual mandate was required for the law to function. However, a subsequent congress deliberately chose to zero out the individual mandate without eliminating the law. The subsequent congress' decision making overrides the decision that the congress that passed the ACA. The 2017 Congress very deliberately made the individual mandate completely nonfunctional, while leaving the rest of the law in place.
TL;DR
- 2010 Congress passes the ACA with the Individual Mandate
- 2012 SCOTUS rules it constitutional
- 2017 Congress zeroes out the Individual Mandate
- The argument now is that the 2010 Congress thought the ACA required the IM to function, ignoring that the 2017 Congress very obviously decided that the ACA didn't require the IM to function.
To me there's just no way to square that circle. The 2017 Congress' decision overrides the 2010 Congress' decision.
-----
Finally, logically I agree with you and I agree with the 2010 Congress. The Individual Mandate is necessary for the ACA to function the way it was originally designed. The ACA is a better, more functional, law with the individual mandate in place. I disagreed with the 2017 Congress' decision to remove the mandate.
But that's no longer relevant. The question now is, is the IM necessary for the ACA to function the way the 2017 Congress amended it to function. The answer—since they repealed the individual mandate—is clearly "no".