This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "Federalism Analysis" section fails to address the important fact that the government can indeed force a citizen into commerce, just not via the commerce clause. I'm not aware of any other tax law that coerces the purchase of a service/product, and certainly not one that is expected to consume ~10% of a lower-middle class income every year. I think this definitely needs to be mentioned.
I'm a Wiki newbee, so I don't know how to create citations, (especially video clips, due to copyrights, etc.) but there is video out there that touches on this issue. Judge Andrew Napolitano, on Fox News is one example.
Could a more experienced editor do something with this, please? Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been assisting with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, only to now find this page. It's largely well-written but there appears to be a massive duplication of effort. Shouldn't the stuff about the Supreme Court go into the other page, with only a short summary and a reference here? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The section entitled "Opinion of the Court" is far too simplistic and misrepresents what the Court did and did not do. The only parts of the Roberts opinion that are the "Opinion of the Court" were, in its own words (page 1 of Roberts' opinion), Parts I, II, and III-C. The part about the Commerce Clause was not the Opinion of the Court, it was just the opinion of Justice Roberts. This issue has been hashed out already on the talk page at National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
fwiw... the rest of Coons v. Geithner was quietly dismissed back on December 19, 2012
[1] <working link>. Meatspace prevents me from giving this the attention it needs at the moment however. --
George Orwell III (
talk) 11:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC) --
George Orwell III (
talk)
16:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The following has been moved from the article to here:
Merely providing a case number and the name of the judge does not work. You would at least need to know what court the case was filed in, and who the plaintiffs and defendants are. There are other problems with the material, as well, which could be sorted out later. Famspear ( talk) 18:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have determined that the case is Jeffrey Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of the Treasury, and Jacob Lew. The case is in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case no. 1:13-cv-02066-CKK. The plaintiff of course is an individual named Jeffrey Cutler, and he filed pro se (meaning that he does not have a lawyer). Maybe we can clean this up later, and get it into a form that could be used in the article. Famspear ( talk) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this include legal challenges, as well as constitutional challenges? I am far from an expert, but the recent ruling by the Appeals Court in Halbig v. Sebelius was a legal challenge (i.e. interpretation of the law) as opposed to challenging the law's validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaganoff ( talk • contribs)
Oh, and it would be great if someone could invent a secret formula for magically keeping the crazies and vandals out of Wikipedia. I edit mostly in articles related to taxation. Fortunately, most of the Wack-a-Dooster World Contributors seemed to lose interest in Wikipedia tax articles about, I guess, five or six years ago.... When I started editing in late 2005, it was a zoo. Famspear ( talk) 14:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I just checked on Halbig v. Sebelius. Based on the brief news report I saw, the decision in this case was not based on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act at all. According to the report, at least, this case involved a challenge to a regulation issued under the Act. The regulation was ruled invalid -- not the Affordable Care Act. At least, that's what the report indicated. Stay tuned. Famspear ( talk) 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The case is now styled as Halbig v. Burwell. Here's an excerpt:
In other words, the Treasury regulation, the "IRS Rule" (not the statute) has been ruled to be invalid, as the regulation does not conform to the statute. Famspear ( talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The decision was rendered in the case of Halbig v. Burwell, No. 14-5018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (July 22, 2014). Famspear ( talk) 03:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
See Halbig v. Burwell. Famspear ( talk) 03:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think cases should be mentioned in this article unless they've received at least passing news or SCOTUSblog coverage. There are a lot of crazy lawsuits out there, so we can't rely only on PACER or other primary sources. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
173.67.158.36, editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. This means there must be consensus for most proposed edits. Please respond to my comment immediately above before you re-add the material about Cutler v. HHS. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear user at IP 173.67.158.36: If you're talking about the Cutler case, number 1:13-cv-02066-CKK, then no, I'm not the editor who added that to the article. That was done on May 15, 2014 by a user at IP 198.212.99.11. The material was in terrible shape, and I removed it. The other editor restored it, so I cleaned it up quite a bit. So, no, I did not add the Cutler case (and I did not add the West Virginia v. HHS material, either, if anyone is interested). Whether these materials on either of these cases should stay in the article is a separate issue, the debate about which I don't have time to participate in right now. I just wanted to clear that up. Famspear ( talk) 18:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
173.67.158.36, you are required to continue discussing this issue until it is resolved. If you continue to revert before a consensus is reached then you could be blocked without further notice. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Material on Wikipedia generally must be cited to secondary sources that demonstrate the material is noteworthy. Pacer.gov is not a secondary source (nor is citing to it an appropriate citation style; if anything, the docket filings themselves should be cited to). Unless coverage in secondary sources for the Cutler case is established, then I will I agree with Dr. Fleischman that it should not be included in this article. And I would refer the IP editor to WP:BRD and ask the edit warring cease immediately. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You both are trying to CENSOR HISTORY!! EVEN IF YOU DELETE THE CUTLER CASE THE OTHER 2 CASES ARE NOTEWORTHY AND HAVE 2 DIFFERENT SOURCES. WHAT ABOUT THEM?? THE SECTION STARTS "As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA" SCORES NOW EQUALS 2?? THIS SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF NEWS MANIPULATION AND EDITS. YOU HAVE AN AGENDA!! AND HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING EDITORS!!!
On July 29, 2014, the State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW) was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. [1] [2]
On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers. Case 1:13-cv-01214-WCG-142123 [3] [4]
173.67.162.239 ( talk) 22:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There seems to be a dispute between what is history and news. I think there should be a history page that is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act so standard people can see unbiased history by date and case no. Individuals have hijacked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act under Follow-up litigation it starts "As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA." SCORES IS NOW 3?? 173.67.162.239 ( talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 173.67.162.239 ( talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)King v. Burwell should not be included in this article, as it is not a constitutional challenge, it's a statutory interpretation case. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACA as written instead of trying to invalidate it. The fact that an amicus brief may have raised separation of powers issues does not make the case a constitutional challenge. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Foofighter20x, what would be the proposed scope of the "Legal challenges" article, i.e., how would be decide whether a case was a "legal challenge" or not? I would likely support a move if we can come up with a practical and legally sound standard that could be consistently applied. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that if such an article were to be made, it take the form of a list article (e.g., "List of court cases related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"). This may allow for shorter case summaries in what would otherwise be an unduly large article. In addition, to maintain a WP:NPOV, the article's scope should not be limited to "major" cases (as suggested in the above exchange), because what cases are or are not "major" is a matter of opinion. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Please would interested editors view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where we are discussing a possible copy and paste, or a POV fork from this article. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: The ACRU is not a reliable source? So then should the ACLU be considered unreliable as well? Terrorist96 ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Other places it has been published: ACRU, Heritage, CNS News. Terrorist96 ( talk) 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I found it Court Strikes Parts Of Medicaid Managed Care Regulation Over Health Insurance Tax and opinion. Follow up. See the section titled State Challenge To Health Insurance Tax Via Medicaid Managed Care Will Continue. Terrorist96 ( talk) 02:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear all,
As far as I understand the issue,
Case 4:18-cv-00167-O would fit into the article but is not mentioned yet.
If I'm wrong, where is the case represented in Wikipedia? Or are there doubts about the relevance?
Thank you in advance!
Yours,
Ciciban (
talk)
12:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The Trump administration will urge the US Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act, despite Attorney General William Barr warning Trump officials about the political ramifications of undermining the health care safety net during the coronavirus pandemic. The Trump administration position backs a lawsuit filed by a group of Republican states seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act after Congress eliminated the tax penalty for not having health insurance. [4] [5] [6]
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "Federalism Analysis" section fails to address the important fact that the government can indeed force a citizen into commerce, just not via the commerce clause. I'm not aware of any other tax law that coerces the purchase of a service/product, and certainly not one that is expected to consume ~10% of a lower-middle class income every year. I think this definitely needs to be mentioned.
I'm a Wiki newbee, so I don't know how to create citations, (especially video clips, due to copyrights, etc.) but there is video out there that touches on this issue. Judge Andrew Napolitano, on Fox News is one example.
Could a more experienced editor do something with this, please? Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been assisting with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, only to now find this page. It's largely well-written but there appears to be a massive duplication of effort. Shouldn't the stuff about the Supreme Court go into the other page, with only a short summary and a reference here? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The section entitled "Opinion of the Court" is far too simplistic and misrepresents what the Court did and did not do. The only parts of the Roberts opinion that are the "Opinion of the Court" were, in its own words (page 1 of Roberts' opinion), Parts I, II, and III-C. The part about the Commerce Clause was not the Opinion of the Court, it was just the opinion of Justice Roberts. This issue has been hashed out already on the talk page at National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
fwiw... the rest of Coons v. Geithner was quietly dismissed back on December 19, 2012
[1] <working link>. Meatspace prevents me from giving this the attention it needs at the moment however. --
George Orwell III (
talk) 11:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC) --
George Orwell III (
talk)
16:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The following has been moved from the article to here:
Merely providing a case number and the name of the judge does not work. You would at least need to know what court the case was filed in, and who the plaintiffs and defendants are. There are other problems with the material, as well, which could be sorted out later. Famspear ( talk) 18:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have determined that the case is Jeffrey Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of the Treasury, and Jacob Lew. The case is in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case no. 1:13-cv-02066-CKK. The plaintiff of course is an individual named Jeffrey Cutler, and he filed pro se (meaning that he does not have a lawyer). Maybe we can clean this up later, and get it into a form that could be used in the article. Famspear ( talk) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this include legal challenges, as well as constitutional challenges? I am far from an expert, but the recent ruling by the Appeals Court in Halbig v. Sebelius was a legal challenge (i.e. interpretation of the law) as opposed to challenging the law's validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaganoff ( talk • contribs)
Oh, and it would be great if someone could invent a secret formula for magically keeping the crazies and vandals out of Wikipedia. I edit mostly in articles related to taxation. Fortunately, most of the Wack-a-Dooster World Contributors seemed to lose interest in Wikipedia tax articles about, I guess, five or six years ago.... When I started editing in late 2005, it was a zoo. Famspear ( talk) 14:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I just checked on Halbig v. Sebelius. Based on the brief news report I saw, the decision in this case was not based on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act at all. According to the report, at least, this case involved a challenge to a regulation issued under the Act. The regulation was ruled invalid -- not the Affordable Care Act. At least, that's what the report indicated. Stay tuned. Famspear ( talk) 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The case is now styled as Halbig v. Burwell. Here's an excerpt:
In other words, the Treasury regulation, the "IRS Rule" (not the statute) has been ruled to be invalid, as the regulation does not conform to the statute. Famspear ( talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The decision was rendered in the case of Halbig v. Burwell, No. 14-5018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (July 22, 2014). Famspear ( talk) 03:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
See Halbig v. Burwell. Famspear ( talk) 03:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think cases should be mentioned in this article unless they've received at least passing news or SCOTUSblog coverage. There are a lot of crazy lawsuits out there, so we can't rely only on PACER or other primary sources. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
173.67.158.36, editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. This means there must be consensus for most proposed edits. Please respond to my comment immediately above before you re-add the material about Cutler v. HHS. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear user at IP 173.67.158.36: If you're talking about the Cutler case, number 1:13-cv-02066-CKK, then no, I'm not the editor who added that to the article. That was done on May 15, 2014 by a user at IP 198.212.99.11. The material was in terrible shape, and I removed it. The other editor restored it, so I cleaned it up quite a bit. So, no, I did not add the Cutler case (and I did not add the West Virginia v. HHS material, either, if anyone is interested). Whether these materials on either of these cases should stay in the article is a separate issue, the debate about which I don't have time to participate in right now. I just wanted to clear that up. Famspear ( talk) 18:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
173.67.158.36, you are required to continue discussing this issue until it is resolved. If you continue to revert before a consensus is reached then you could be blocked without further notice. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Material on Wikipedia generally must be cited to secondary sources that demonstrate the material is noteworthy. Pacer.gov is not a secondary source (nor is citing to it an appropriate citation style; if anything, the docket filings themselves should be cited to). Unless coverage in secondary sources for the Cutler case is established, then I will I agree with Dr. Fleischman that it should not be included in this article. And I would refer the IP editor to WP:BRD and ask the edit warring cease immediately. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You both are trying to CENSOR HISTORY!! EVEN IF YOU DELETE THE CUTLER CASE THE OTHER 2 CASES ARE NOTEWORTHY AND HAVE 2 DIFFERENT SOURCES. WHAT ABOUT THEM?? THE SECTION STARTS "As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA" SCORES NOW EQUALS 2?? THIS SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF NEWS MANIPULATION AND EDITS. YOU HAVE AN AGENDA!! AND HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING EDITORS!!!
On July 29, 2014, the State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW) was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. [1] [2]
On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers. Case 1:13-cv-01214-WCG-142123 [3] [4]
173.67.162.239 ( talk) 22:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There seems to be a dispute between what is history and news. I think there should be a history page that is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act so standard people can see unbiased history by date and case no. Individuals have hijacked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act under Follow-up litigation it starts "As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA." SCORES IS NOW 3?? 173.67.162.239 ( talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 173.67.162.239 ( talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)King v. Burwell should not be included in this article, as it is not a constitutional challenge, it's a statutory interpretation case. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACA as written instead of trying to invalidate it. The fact that an amicus brief may have raised separation of powers issues does not make the case a constitutional challenge. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Foofighter20x, what would be the proposed scope of the "Legal challenges" article, i.e., how would be decide whether a case was a "legal challenge" or not? I would likely support a move if we can come up with a practical and legally sound standard that could be consistently applied. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that if such an article were to be made, it take the form of a list article (e.g., "List of court cases related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"). This may allow for shorter case summaries in what would otherwise be an unduly large article. In addition, to maintain a WP:NPOV, the article's scope should not be limited to "major" cases (as suggested in the above exchange), because what cases are or are not "major" is a matter of opinion. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Please would interested editors view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where we are discussing a possible copy and paste, or a POV fork from this article. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: The ACRU is not a reliable source? So then should the ACLU be considered unreliable as well? Terrorist96 ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Other places it has been published: ACRU, Heritage, CNS News. Terrorist96 ( talk) 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I found it Court Strikes Parts Of Medicaid Managed Care Regulation Over Health Insurance Tax and opinion. Follow up. See the section titled State Challenge To Health Insurance Tax Via Medicaid Managed Care Will Continue. Terrorist96 ( talk) 02:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear all,
As far as I understand the issue,
Case 4:18-cv-00167-O would fit into the article but is not mentioned yet.
If I'm wrong, where is the case represented in Wikipedia? Or are there doubts about the relevance?
Thank you in advance!
Yours,
Ciciban (
talk)
12:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The Trump administration will urge the US Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act, despite Attorney General William Barr warning Trump officials about the political ramifications of undermining the health care safety net during the coronavirus pandemic. The Trump administration position backs a lawsuit filed by a group of Republican states seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act after Congress eliminated the tax penalty for not having health insurance. [4] [5] [6]