Talk:Affordable Care Act

Legislative History

I've restored the Legislative History section, which was deleted on 12 January 2011 with only a little discussion (rev 407447028). Hauskalainen said on the talk page that the article was getting too long, and his revision comment adds "Its all a bit academic now." The history of a bill is hugely important, and while I share the same concern about length, deleting the section entirely was going way too far in my opinion. This was the biggest piece of legislation in many of our lifetimes, so it is understandable that the WP article would be big too. Anyway, I make no claims about the quality of this section and I restore it only to serve as a starting (or re-starting) point. Edit away. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When articles get too long, the appropriate action is to suggest forking individual sections while maintaining a summary in the original. 192.41.81.68 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but the Legislative History section is one of the shorter ones in this article. By my imprecise estimates the Provisions and Impact sections are tied for the longest, with the Constitutional Challenges one a bit shorter. IMO Constitutional Challenges should be forked, not Legislative History. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the legislative history box in the sidebar accurate? Some of the links lead to things that are very unrelated. 70.109.56.32 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Increased CBO Estimates for 2012-2022

As a matter of record, this morning the CBO released another 10 year window estimate of costs at $1.76 billion. I haven't seen the major media outlets picking up on this story yet, but as they do we should probably examine all of the reliable sources and include this new information. Clearly the examiner is not a source we would use in the article, but they have jumped on the story: http://www. examiner .com/conservative-in-san-diego/obamacare-estimate-rises-to-1-76-trillion 192.41.81.68 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant 1.76 trillion.192.41.81.68 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that, with the corrected number: CBO estimated gross ten year (2012-2022) costs at 1.76 trillion. A neutral WP:RS would be The Hill,[1] which links to CBO's actual report.[2] As reported in The Hill, CBO revised its estimates to report that 2 million fewer people would get insurance, thus reducing the insurance subsidy cost, and increasing the amount of penalties people are expected to pay. From the federal budget perspective, the increased penalties count as a net cost reduction, even though from the perspective of the people paying the penalties, they are a cost increase. CBO did not update its income forecasts, so its revised deficit impact is based solely on net spending. It put net spending in each of the next 10 years under the heading "Effects on the Federal Deficit," so reading that the way they presented it, the net spending increases the deficit in each of the next 10 years, including by over $100 billion annually starting in FY2015. Definitely notable.TVC 15 (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As per the comments above, I've updated and consolidated the federal spending and deficit sections to reflect the current CBO estimates.TVC 15 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1.76 trillion number is totally misleading, because it is the gross spending, not the net cost (spending - revenue). From page two of the CBO report:

Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.

i.e., the net deficit impact has actually gone down slightly. Moreover, these amounts do not include numerous cost-saving provisions in the ACA, which the CBO previously determined would have a net deficit reduction effect. From page two of the CBO report:

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I've updated to clarify gross and net spending. $1.76 trillion in gross spending is certainly notable. The projections changed for two reasons: (1) the calendar brings more of the spending within the 10-year horizon than was visible in 2010, and (2) 2 million people were shifted from the subsidized insurance category to the penalty category, causing a 5% ($50 billion) change in net federal spending. Partisans on each side have tried to spin the numbers, for example the WaPo blog cited above tried to spin it favorably while others spin it unfavorably. The facts remain, more than $1.7 trillion in gross spending, including more than $1.2 trillion in net spending, according to the most recent CBO projection.TVC 15 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when is gross spending a reasonable way to measure the cost of legislation? And where do you get the "1.2 trillion in net spending" number? Page two of the CBO report (quoted above) puts it at < 1.1 trillion net spending, not including savings due to Medicare reductions and other provisions of the ACA. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know... Nearly everything that I've read starting from the links found within THIS PAGE, then the sub-links to each blog post linked from that page contradicts or clarifies much of what is being proposed as a change here. That 2 million shift occurs only in one of three alternate scenarios besides the latest baseline that GPO came up with for this March 2012 revision for example. We should stick to one GPO prognosis and not jump from one alternative scenario to another in a piece-meal fashion. Its mis-leading to say the least. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave you direct quotes from page two of the CBO report that you are talking about. I'm not talking about any "alternative scenarios," I'm just reading what they wrote. And the other CBO page you just linked says, and I quote:

The following figure shows CBO and JCT’s projections of the net cost to the federal government of all the provisions of the ACA. Our projections made last February (our most recent ones for all the provisions of the law) extended the original ones by two years, but again changed little, on net, from the original projections for each given year.

And this is followed by a graph showing a negative net budgetary impact. i.e. it is projected to (slightly) decrease the net deficit when all provisions are included. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - wasn't disagreeing with you or CBO's revision but with the assertion of the $1.76 trillion "price tag" among other new analysis. I think I can follow what's going on here just fine (comparing the new 10 year estimate to 8 years of the initial estimate then ignoring all the other changes in population, inflation, revenue forecasts, etc. to make it seem like cost nearly doubled) -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The thing is, even quoting the $1.1 trillion "net cost" is misleading (much less the $1.76 trillion gross cost), because as the CBO report makes clear, that is only the directly insurance-related provisions; when all the other provisions of the ACA are taken into account the CBO clearly states that they are projecting a net deficit reduction (however, the projection for the other provisions wasn't updated this year). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the question where did the numbers come from, please read past the prose and look at the actual numbers, which are in Table 2. In answer to the question when did gross spending become a reasonable way to measure cost, the answer is it was always a reasonable way to measure cost; sometimes partisan spin tries to re-frame cost in some other way to make it seem smaller, but the bottom line is all the spending has to come from somewhere, and that's a cost. In fact, the gross spending is actually a clearer measure than the net spending, which subtracts the penalties from the gross. The net deficit numbers were not updated, so the nearest we have to current data is Table 2, but in any event the deficit reflects the difference between the new spending and the tax increases. Reading the comments above, I can't help noticing echoes of the partisan headline 'air war' (spending "doubled" vs spending was "reduced" by $50 billion), while WP should look at the actual current numbers. CBO projected the legislation will create over $1.7 trillion in gross spending during the period 2012-2022.TVC 15 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Corporations don't pay taxes on gross revenue & I don't pay income tax on gross income either - how is gross ______(whatever you like) the accurate measure for cost again?

If you're going to use gross costs then you'll need to match it to gross revenue or for the love of Christ just save everybody the time of doing the math themselves and stick to net figures across the board. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you would choose to bring religion into this, but if you're planning to build a church, you really ought to consider gross cost, i.e. land+labor+materials+permits etc. Likewise I really don't know why you would bring your tax situation into this, but if you work for a corporation they probably have a very clear idea of the gross cost of each employee, including salary+benefits etc. Gross is the primary measure, i.e. before adjustments turn it into adjusted gross.TVC 15 (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Its clear you don't get what I was driving at because you're focusing on semantics, syntax and literary license - not substance. The section was suppose to be split, as per previous discussion above, 1.) away from private sector impact content and 2.) made more neutral (i.e Future budgets and the national debt or something similar). You might have managed to separate some of the private sector stuff from the public content but you are still enshrining with undue weight to one side of the same budgetary coin. A budget is both outlays and revenue - you went with just Fedral expenditures & deficit impact in contrast to what was discussed earlier. So we now have Expenditures (a negative in both accounting-speak and public perception) and Deficits (also a negative in accounting as well as in perception). How can this section be considered balanced or nuetral when its title alone is only about one side of the budget coin? IMHO, your additions/edits are only about giving one side of the equation - or in this case the March 2012 CBO revisions. That's not what was hoped to come out of the earlier discussion. I'm starting to think revising these sections under this article was way too much to hope for given the constant polarization over one thing or another regarding this statute & that Dw31415 had it about right a week ago. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding polarization, the solution would seem to be to work towards objective numbers. Gross spending is the most objective; net spending is less informative because it subtracts penalties even though the money is still getting spent. Alas boosters of the legislation seem not to want to mention any numbers unless they are basically advertisements, e.g. the $50 billion "reduction" compared to the previous projection. WP isn't an advertising site, nor is it a compendium of press releases. Quoting CBO's gross spending projection is WP:NPOV.TVC 15 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how any neutral observer could argue that "gross spending" is more important and neutral than the net deficit impact. The deficit is mentioned numerous times in the article, and numerous notable commentators (some of whom are already quoted in the article) focus on the deficit impact. How is it "boosterism", then, to accurately describe what the CBO clearly states about the entire bill's deficit impact (that it reduces the deficit in their projections)? It seems like pure partisan spin to focus on either the (a) gross spending of a portion of the bill or (b) the net deficit impact of only a portion of the bill. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Steve. I tried to put the deficit first but its pretty clear TVC is fighting for a conservative bias to this section. The key number is the deficit conclusion, considering revenue and expense. I've updated the sections to spell this out and then will add a revenue section shortly.03:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best answer to your question is here.[3] Most Americans recognize the legislation increases both spending and taxes. A neutral presentation would be, 'It increases spending by X, and taxes by Y, resulting in a net deficit impact of Z." If you delete X and Y, or bury them, you get spin one way or the other. But, I do believe you when you say that you don't see how gross spending is more important and neutral than deficit impact: part of the disagreement all along has been supporters don't see any problem with the spending increase as long as the tax increase is even larger, while most Americans look at the broader context.TVC 15 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But nearly everyone who has posted some tid-bit somewhere on this talk page is looking at this from the broader perspective - one that goes beyond simple spending and taxation. Regardless of your own personal situation, we are all paying, in one form or another, the additional cost of the bulk of the uninsured's end-of-life and emergency room care. It might not be an exact or equal dollar figure spread out amongst the curently "paying" population but it is most definitely fractions per citizens thereof in dollars. The whole point here is to reflect that cost - be it an increase/decrease in additional taxation or the increase/decrease in insurance premiums or the increase/decrease in career mobility or the increase/decrease in average wages and so on. I'm no fan of spin, but this is one case where it rotates both to left as well as to the right and there is not much we can do about it since most references are up to their repective necks on one side or the other on this issue since the 1990s already.

It seems all you want here is to focus on what you perceive is the paramount issue at hand (increased spending offset by increased revenue as it pertains to the deficit) while most of the other folks are looking for the overall cost as a whole and in the context of care. Again, your approach is better suited for sub-sections found under either the U.S. Public Debt article or with Title 42 itself (Public Health and Welfare - the entire codification of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, as part of the normal appropriation process. PPACA is but a handful of sub-chapters under Title 42). I don't believe anybody here is looking to hide X or Y for the sake of Z but to simply include all 3 plus their relevant tangents for this statute and this statute alone. At the same time - the position where increased spending is offset by increased taxes as somehow being wrong or invalid cries foul as far as N:POV goes. A lot of folks are able to differentiate between the current informal tax on premiums or the proposed regulated tax as its substitute will probably mean the same cost in the end anyway -especially if left unchecked. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be able to get to a consensus on how to present the numbers. But, respectfully, there has been disinformation from both parties, and cost-shifting by the uninsured is an example. If you look at the numbers, it's 2% of total spending, but supporters have used it as a distraction. Also, the legislation is projected to increase total spending even above prior law. I don't think it would be accurate to say that including the mandatory spending is POV, any more than listing the purported benefits would be POV. The legislation increases insurance, spending, and taxes. As the person who signed it said, it's based on Romneycare, which increased both insurance and spending, and hospitalizations, and btw the number of people filing bankruptcy with medical bills over $5k that they couldn't pay increased by a third. Rationalizing Romneycare or Obamacare by blaming the uninsured for "cost shifting" is definitely as incorrect as misspelling the word definitely.[4] One might even call it Orwellian. The reason PhRMA and AHA and AMA (and initially AHIP) supported it was because it would increase their revenues. If we're going to list the purported benefits, as the article does, then NPOV requires also reporting the costs.TVC 15 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being more clear - I'm not saying listing spending is POV but listing spending without the expected offsets, the savings, revenues or curbing the growth curve and so on, makes it POV by omission. Listing the benefits (I prefer the term 'provisions' personally) is unavoidable. Provisions are likely to have corresponding sections dealing with funding that provision, yes, but it is too broad a brush to stoke when you argue that listing provisions equates to some required counter-balance rooted in listing the various vehicles of funding (i.e. not all provisions have a corresponding slice in the funding pie chart). This problematic because the 2012 estimate says to recycle the 2011 figures for those parts and goes on to say the differences, if any, are within the rounding to still cancel the changes outon net as the overall estimate moves forward in time the way I read it.

Nevertheless, we should have balanced assesment of the provisions on one hand as well as a balanced assesment of the funding on the other hand - neither necessarily ever fully meeting each other on every point nor being the justification for the existance of one or the other. Overly general devil's advocate... Say the mandate is severed by the Court but the rest of the law remains (as impotent as it may be) then Congress comes along and manages to pass something that passes for a substitute vehicle for current provision funding - what then? re-write both the Provision and Funding sections because we've made one the counter balance to the other? No thanks - I want both sections neutral & complete with enough legs to stand on their own (i.e. be easily trimmed when superseded by the next congressional adventure in health care if it happens in our lifetimes) if need be.

As far as "cost-shifting" goes - I'm not sure how else to describe it but that's what is taking place here. As far as I'm concerned - I know I was hosed before without this law, I'm most likely just as hosed in the future as well but the point in time where I eventual pay the piper (a predictable tax/penalty/exchange) shifts to a more agreeable state (away from unchecked premiums growing faster than inflation) for me at the personal level. With 230 out of 235 years of public debt and deficit spending under this Republic's belt, I find the moral-hazzard slipery-slope wealth-redistribution arguments quite laughable as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - I've added CBO's most recent comprehensive estimate (which was from March 2011) projecting a net deficit reduction of $210 billion during the period 2012-2021 into a new paragraph to combine all of the current estimates. Hopefully presenting all three numbers together in one paragraph will address the POV concerns. I do think it's appropriate to lead with the current estimates, as CBO has published many revisions and others objected previously to going through all of them chronologically. (Some felt listing all revisions chronologically undermined CBO's credibility, but personally I thought it was just confusing; better to start with their current estimate and then offer a brief summary of past estimates.)

Having the current estimate to start with is just fine. Nobody understands the CBO's mandate nor function anyway. It's too late to approach scoring correctly anywhere on WP now that so many examples exist where bits and pieces are used without context. Again, in my heart I believe most if not all of this should be laid out under its own fiscal year budget w/revisions; this topic specifically being explored in full as a fork of its parent appropriation section or sub-section there and only summarized here, but that's something vested editors everywhere rather not see for one reason or the other it seems. That summary should be supporting the various flavors of coverage. Anyway - it's closer to almost what I was looking for (though your citation bundling practice leaves room for improvement).

BTW by all accounts the legislation will require premiums to increase faster than inflation, that's part of why HHS found it would increase spending faster than under prior law.

Is it still not better than the previous trend & estimated annual growth rate than before it was enacted?

The existence or non-existence of moral hazard is more applicable to other articles (e.g. TARP), it isn't mentioned in this article probably because it's less relevant to health insurance.

Didn't think it should be. I was just lumping a bunch of positions (unfairly?) into one generalization was all.

Also, you might want to look at the article on United States public debt to get a sense of the history; the most recent decade of deficits and the estimates for next decade differ dramatically from prior periods.TVC 15 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Duh. Starting with completely ignoring the principle of a 10 year Budget Reconciliation (capital "b" capital "r") process the last time around that had previously allowed/mandated Reagan, Bush1 & Clinton to raise/lower taxes/spending according to triggers put into place at the time of the initial baseline estimates as soon as deviations from that baseline materialized in the years that followed - I blame the DeLay-Rove-Bush2 era more so than anything else here. The Iraq war should have triggered the end, or at least a major downward reform, of the Bush tax cuts as should have the passage of the unfunded presciption drug benefit but that never happened (politization of a principle that at its core is designed to be ubber impartial - how else can a 10 year plan be implemented in 10 one-year fiscal budgets unless you remove the partisan politics? You don't and that's why Reagan is viewed as a tax god in spite of dozens of increases and why Clinton & congress "got away" with a percieved milestone in balancing the budget). The Bush2 era ignored previous practices that made other administrations immortalized in recent times and now we paid for it many times more than what we should be when the financial crises is unavoidably factored in as well. (Worst President ever imho & I voted for him over Gore!).

Add that to the historical amount of retirements taking place & the explosion in debt/spending should be no surprise (in fact, it was long forcasted and expected to be factored into in the next Budget Reconciliation plan - didn't happen). We could have managed this change in the population far better had we followed what we promised to follow - even with a collapse of the housing bubble. Enough rambling - in short: I need no review of budget history nor national debt. Thanks.-- George Orwell III (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference 20

Warning: this resource doesn't specify a title. I'll go look for one. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

2012-06-28 Ruling

Lets not get ahead of ourselves and do this the right way. The information is still pouring in. "on June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court announced it upheld the law in full" That statement is not completely true, from what I can gather reading the news, the individual mandate was upheld, but the Medicare clause of the Act was limited. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 15:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi protect

The law was just upheld as constitutional, and the 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding it will be a flashpoint for politically motivated IP editors. I have an account, I just forgot to log in. 67.169.4.243 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconding request of 67.169.4.243. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As of right now, I'm not seeing a lot of vandalism on this article. If vandalism does start to appear, a request should be made at WP:RPP. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In this, though, we must also remember that an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. Nobody wants Romney's or Obama's campaign or Conservapedia to edit this page and add their unsolicited opinions to the page. It is all in the interest of WP:NPOV. I will post this at RPP. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Already true Republican warriors are editing the page, saying flat out that the individual mandate creates a tax, rather than mentioning the current RS consensus that it functions like a tax in that the penalties for not following are constitutionally taxes but functionally not. I understand that this statement may be somewhat POV biased, but the fact that completely anonymous IP editors can act like thieves in the night and edit without their edits ever being ascribed to some reputation. Hence the page should be semi-protected. Glad that you put my request on WP:RPP. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, already Democrat warriors are editing the page to push their POV. Semi-protect, please. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I put it in at the second hint of vandalism that appeared after I began watching the page. I don't want to deal with edit wars. Things like this are the exact reason I am not a republican. (Conversely, if this had failed the results would be the exact reason I'm not a Democrat). We should create an edit notice reminding all POV warriers that they can create Mywikimyway.wikia.com Care to poke some admins on the page protection? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rise of Socialism in America

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is worth to note that this plan is just the beggining of american socialism and the fall of the conservatisms and capitalism? Is this act irreversable? A section about the theory of passive revolution citing Antonio Gramsci can be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.174.151 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) That information would be original research and wouldn't be appropriate for the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC) It would be almost worthwhile to set aside our content policies long enough to hear how an act that pushes people to buy insurance from private, for-profit corporations is "socialism". MastCell Talk 19:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)  Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC) It's hardly the beginning of American socialism, considering that we've had progressive taxes going back to the 1860s. Not to mention the New Deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.4.92 (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC) The individual mandate was a conservative idea before the democrats passed it. C6541 (T↔C) 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC) As much as I'd love to debate this absurd suggestion, This is not a political forum. Please take this to the comment pages of www.any-where-else-but-here.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.55 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC) The IP is correct, I'm hatting this to prevent further misuse of the talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"controversey" 4-1-1-3 - better sourcing?

Under the impact section there is a somewhat long bit about "controversy" over alleged double counting. As I was reading through the first couple paragraphs, I wasn't able to find anything in the cited sources that indicated there was a controversey. I don't want to debate over semantics, but nothing in the sources (191-193 if I remember correctly?) seemed to be anything but explanations of the mechanisms. For us to say there is a controversey, we should be referring to secondary sources that indicate it as such, not applying our opinion or OR based on base data in the cited sources. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be called a controversey, just that if we do, it should be backed up by the citations. The first paragraph specifically refers to a controversey, but the single citation does not support that. Given the sensitivity of the article, I thought I'd bring it here first. However, unless there are any concerns voiced in a couple days, I plan to look for additional sources or change the wording, whichever is suitable. I would also suggest that this could be edited down a bit. It seems to be getting a bit of undue weight compare to more beefy issues handled is far less space...Hopefully the partisan slapfest will subside in the next couple days and the adults can get back to the real work here. Jbower47 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed hatnote

This article is about a politically controversial topic. When making a statement of opinion or of fact, please cite an independent, reliable source.

How is it? Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 22:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any grounds in policy for editing notes that appear to the reader? I think we could put a hidden note in, but I have had no experience with hatnotes like the one you proposed. In any case, it is semi-protected so we shouldn't have too many problems from inexperienced editors. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the individual mandate actually upheld, or was the challenge to it just dismissed?

I've been reading the actual opinion, and Chief Justice Roberts never actually wrote that the Court found the individual mandate to be constitutional per se. What he wrote was that Congress could argue that the mandate is a tax. He then goes on to talk about the Anti-Injunction Act which prevents challenges to tax policy until someone has actually had the tax levied upon them, paid it, then sues for a refund.

From my understanding of the opinion, the Court merely dismissed the challenge to the individual mandate under the Anti-Injunction Act, but also left the door open for future challenges. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that, but inclusion of that material would be original research. Reliable sources such as this and all of these state that it was upheld. I found some sources for "individual mandate dismissed" but those are not referring to this supreme court case. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How is citing the actual opinion original research?

FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)