First Thread Discussion: Health Care Legislation is constitutional. The ACA (affordable care act) was put into effect to help those who couldn't afford it and improve the quality of life. The ACA...

First Thread Discussion:

• Health Care Legislation is constitutional. The ACA (affordable care act) was put into effect to help those who couldn't afford it and improve the quality of life. The ACA provides health care for millions of people. The biggest benefit is that the rise of health insurance has slowed down. Cost burdens shift from health care providers and pharmaceutical companies. ACA protects people with preexisting conditions from begin taken advantage of and being forced to pay for expensive unnecessary care. Consumers have begun receiving a standardized report explaining their health insurance. This accomplishment is actually a big deal because for the first time, different health insurance plans have to present their coverage details in the same format, and use the same language. Consumers can now accurately compare different health insurance plans. The ACA simply stopped politicians from preying on peoples health in exchange for a dollar. Since the law doesn't collect taxes, republicans believe that the law is unconstitutional. In my opinion health care is a right not a privilege, sure many others will agree.

Second Thread Discussion:

• The question of whether the Affordable Care Act (ACT) is constitutional has been a highly debated issue since it was enacted in 2010 by then President Barak Obama. The constitutional issues at hand are: the individual mandate that everyone not covered by an insurance plan provided by an employer is mandated to buy into the insurance provided by ACT. If an individual did not enroll they were penalized monetarily, a “tax” imposed by the government for non-participation. Additionally, ACT required the expansion of Medicaid by the individual states. These two constitutional issues were decided by the Supreme Court in 2012. In this decision the Supreme Court ruled that in fact the power to tax non-participants was within the authority of Congress given their power to tax. Secondly, the Supreme Court ruled that the expansion by the states was unconstitutional given the states were not given sufficient time to analyze and enact the changes. However, the court felt that if the states had the option to participate in expansion, thereby limiting the government’s power to enforce the law, it was constitutional. So, at the end of the day, Obamacare was deemed by the Supreme Court to be constitutional. A recent ruling by a Texas Federal Judge puts back into question the taxing authority issue. In President Trump’s recent tax overhaul, it was put into law that individuals are not mandated to participate, therefor they cannot be taxed as a penalty. Given this new set of facts, the Judge’s interpretation is that now that the penalty is nonexistent, there is no longer a need for Congressional taxing power. If there is no mandated taxing power the law violates the constitution, and by default the rest of the law becomes invalid. There are many different legal opinions but most feel that this will not win upon appeal. If the appeal is not successful and the case is returned and accepted by the Supreme Court, it will be decided on its merits. However, if the states win on appeal the law would be deemed unconstitutional. Until the appeal is decided or the Supreme Court rules, ACT remains constitutional and in effect.

Respond to these two threaded discussion. Each threaded discussions in a paragraph. Please state either you agree or disagree and please support your answer in detail in a brief explanation. It could be opinion exlanation and you can support iy from internet. And if you need to to put sources. Please do so. Give me access to the sources please so I don’t fail the assignment. Please write in basic English as I am an international students as my English is my third language.