The National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius case
The National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius was a case ruled by the federal state supreme court. The case was about the Medicaid expansion plan by the Obama Care and individual mandate. The Medicaid diversification provision was toiled towards increasing and maintaining the numbers of persons who acquired the insurance coverage. The CongressCongress aimed at reducing the cost of health care by increasing the number of people with insurance coverage. The CongressCongress provided that all individuals must be covered by the health insurance policy. Those people who were not covered by the government programs or their employers could buy insurance from private insurance companies. It also required the state to diversify the Medicaid programs, failure to which they might not have access to the federal Medicaid funds. The court supported that the individual mandate was a proper exercise that was enhanced by the CongressCongress. Besides, the court held that individual mandate was a legitimate strategy of article 1 of the CongressCongress that elaborated on the taxing power. Else, the court found that the involvement of the state in the medical diversification program was a voluntary act.
The arguments that were presented in the case were about the legitimacy of the Obamacare act. The discussions were also performed on whether the Obamacare act was a responsibility of the CongressCongress. The affordable care act was challenged by both the coalition of states and the individuals on the basis that the health insurance mandate gone beyond the power of CongressCongress to control interstate commerce. Also, the affordable care act was challenged that the commerce clause spelled on article 1 superseded the ability of the CongressCongress to impart taxes. The plaintiffs also had the perception that the Medicaid expansion broke the Tenth Amendment by forcing the states to follow the regulations of the federal government. The court of appeal held that the Medicaid expansion was a proper exercise of the s[ending power of the CongressCongress. However, it concluded that CongressCongress could not enact the power of the individual. The anti-injunction act clearly outlined that any individual will withhold no suit for the aim of preventing the assessment or collection of taxes in any court. The chief justice gives the verdict that the individual mandate is supposed to be taken as within the ability of the CongressCongress to impart charges.
The chief justice ruling favored the enactment of Obamacare. The court ruling spilled that Obamacare was constitutional and that all the American citizens should have healthcare insurance as a cover to their health. The individual mandate as purely legal within constitutions spending and taxing clause. The court also nullified the provision that would restrain the funding of federal Medicaid from the states.