This was due to a perception that the act gave individuals who did not acquire health insurance covers the charge that was to have their incomes taxed by the internal revenue service as a penalty1. They claimed that the congress which is responsible for making laws that govern them, was indulging them in a commercial responsibility of which should not be the case. I agree with this notion as it serves as a disagreement which is aimed at protecting the rights of the minority. They act also had another provision; the Medicaid expansion program. This provision stated that the various states that make up America should provide medical assistance to adults whose income is below 133% of the federal poverty line which I feel is a good idea. This overwrote the Medicaid program that was in place during the time that offered medical assistance to expectant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly and the disabled. The Medicaid expansion program was funded by the federal government same as it used the previous Medicaid program. The act further stated that states that did not comply with the act would be denied the entire federal Medicaid funding2.
This also did not augur well with some individuals as the national federation of independent business and also twenty six states were against it. They therefore moved to the federal district court to file a challenge against the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion program. The court of appeal however held that the congress was working within its constitutional mandate while passing the clause on Medicaid expansion but at the same time, it lacked authority to enact the individual mandate.
Chief justice Roberts in delivering the court’s opinion concluded that “the anti-injunction act does not bar the suit (US constitution part II of 648 F. 3d 1235)3. This was because the anti-injunction act stated that anyone who wished to sue for any tax must