Affordable Care Act Simulation Analysis

Words: 483
Pages: 2

In the Affordable Care Act simulation, I played amicus curiae Robert Long, who was appointed by the Supreme Court, to argue in favor of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. The minimum coverage provision within the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, requires individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty on their annual tax returns. Long argued that the penalty for those who do not purchase is collected in a manner similar to a tax, which would be deemed unconstitutional. I agree with Long on these terms because while Congress has certain rights delegated to them through the constitution, essentially offering an ultimatum is seen more as a threat towards people rather than the regulation of commerce for the sake of the economy.
Additionally, Long countered that the penalty is a tax subject to the AIA because the provision falls within the definition of tax. Long contends that the penalty could also be categorized as assessable penalties, which are penalties of taxing for the purpose of assessment and collection. Long continues the argument over whether this is a tax or a penalty by saying it is not relevant to AIA because Congress only used the word “penalty” to imply expected abidance with the mandate. Long expressed that the individual mandate’s penalty is a tax
…show more content…
He argues his point by saying that the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s authority, primarily based on their attempts to define the non-purchase of health insurance as “commerce”, implying authority from the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate under the Commerce Clause was not a strong enough point for Congress to go off of because it could be deemed unconstitutional. However, Congress seemed to find a loop hole or another means of finding the constitutionality in the individual