Affordable Care Act. Some clarification needed?

Question

I understand the 2010 Health Care Legislation (Affordable Care Act) passed by Congress generally claims to expand health care to more people and try to control costs. Business interests and the Attorneys General of many states had challenged this law as bad policy and illegal under the U.S. Constitution. I came up with 4 questions that i needed some clearing up on.

1.The general legal dispute concerning this new law.
From what i know so far is that the dispute was about the act being unconstitutional because some congressmen said you cannot regulate commerce. Am i on the right path here?

2. Why is this law being challenged.?
In my opinion the law seems like its being challenged because people feel its unconstitutional.

3) Which provisions of the U. S. Constitution were at the center of this legal dispute.?
This question i came up with out of curiosity but cant find an answer.

4) What was the basis for Chief Justice Roberts' decision upholding the legality of this law? Why was Justice Roberts' decision seen as controversial by some critics?
I read alot about roberts but couldnt find anything about his decision which i found was odd. and i have checked the times, forbes, wall street journal and others.

If i could get some more clarification on this act and these question that would be great. Found this to be an interesting topic and decided to look into it more. just need some extra help.

Answer 1

Obamacare is forcing people to pay a fine if they don't own something, which is not a power given to Congress.



However, the Supreme Court upheld it, calling it a tax, which Congress does have the power to do.



There are some additional lawsuits that the Supreme Court will probably rule on regarding whether Congress can make insurance companies cover birth control and other contraception. The insurance companies, many of which are own by religious organizations (think Blue CROSS), believe they don't have to offer birth control because it conflicts with their religious believes, which are protected under the first amendment. The President/Congress, on the other hand, want every women to have access to birth control for obvious reasons.

Answer 2

1. No not even close.



2. That is exactly why it was challenged. And had the cost involved not been considered a tax by the court it would have been struct down.



3. The requirement to buy insurance or pay a penalty was the biggy. The court ruled on 3 other parts of the law and found one of them unconstitutional.



4. He and 4 of the other justices ruled the penalty as a tax which made it legal.

Answer 3

As of September 2010 pupil status is not an argument. Insurers are required to furnish based insurance till the "toddlers" attain age 26. The requirement to be a pupil, in spite of the fact that if finished time or section time, not applies. you do not would desire to be residing at homestead. you do not even would desire to be a based. you additionally would be married. there's a distant probability that your mothers company won a waiver. interior the previous 300 and sixty 5 days approximately 2,500 non everlasting waivers have been granted to specific wellbeing team plans which skill not each team has to conform with the recent regulations. i'd doubt this occasion applies on your case simply by fact a lot of those waivers have been granted to massive employers that furnish limited earnings regulations and to unions that furnish "Cadillac" plans. the different available venture is while you're employed. considering which you at the instant are not any further going to college consistent with danger you're searching for a job. that's in lots of circumstances an argument if your organization delivers scientific coverage. if so you may desire to pass with the plan presented with the aid of your organization simply by fact in this condition you do not qualify to be on your mom's coverage. It would not do not forget that your mom's plan would be greater reasonably-priced or have greater advantageous insurance.