April 3, 2012 |
President Obama is a lawyer by training and a former professor of constitutional law, and I am neither. Still, I can't help but think his remarks today about "judicial activism" and the Supreme Court's review of the 2010 healthcare reform law were hyperbolic. At a news conference held jointly with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama was asked, "[H]ow would you still guarantee healthcare to the uninsured and those Americans who've become insured as a result of the law" if the measure's individual mandate were declared unconstitutional?
March 26, 2012 |
The Supreme Court's opening day of arguments on the healthcare law will not focus on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Instead, the justices will consider whether the legal challenge to it has arrived too soon. The problem is the Anti-Injunction Act, which dates to 1867. It says, "No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person. " How does this figure in the healthcare case? It could block a suit against this key part of the healthcare law if it imposes a tax. The law seems to say that no one can sue over a tax provision until he or she has paid the tax. How is the Affordable Care Act a tax law?
September 26, 2009
Republicans and Democrats have finally found common ground in the debate over the healthcare reform bills moving through Congress. Unfortunately for the bills' advocates, the two sides are united in their distaste for a central part of the legislation: the requirement that every American obtain health insurance. The complaint from the right is that forcing people to buy policies is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty. The critique from the left is that the mandate imposes too great a burden on members of the working class, who would have to spend up to 12% of their incomes to buy policies.
March 29, 2012 |
For wont of the right word, will "Obamacare" be lost? Some analysts are predicting the demise of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying the Supreme Court will declare unconstitutional the law's requirement to buy insurance, then find the measure unsustainable without it. This is purely speculation, of course; the justices aren't expected to release their decision until the end of the current term in June. Nevertheless, the back and forth in the courtroom this week -- and particularly the conservative justices' grilling of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the administration's principal attorney -- suggested that defenders of the law would have been on much more solid ground had they made two changes in the terms used to describe one of the core features of the act. At issue are two aspects of the individual mandate, the requirement that virtually all adult Americans maintain insurance coverage.
October 22, 2013 |
With dire reports of the Obamacare website's dysfunction rising by the hour--and the deadlines for signing up for insurance moving nearer by the day--the question on everyone's lips is: Has the time come to delay the individual mandate? Health economists Nicholas Bagley and Austin Frakt say no. But they do have a workable plan for saving Obamacare from the website's meltdown. Here's the best news: It doesn't require action by Congress. The proposal is not to delay the mandate but to waive the penalty for going without coverage, which hits people who don't have insurance by next April 1. The law sets the penalty for 2014 at $95 per person or 1% of household income, whichever is greater.
March 26, 2012 |
The U.S. Supreme Court opened its historic session Monday to debate the constitutionality of President Obama's healthcare law. For the first time in decades, the court has set aside six hours of argument - most cases are limited to one hour - over three days. On Monday the justices started by handing down opinions before delving into 90 minutes of argument. But today's arguments do not focus on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Instead, the justices are considering whether the legal challenge to it has arrived too soon.
June 29, 2011 |
President Obama's healthcare overhaul survived its first test before a federal appellate court, as the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati concluded that the law's insurance requirement is constitutional. "We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause," a 2-1 majority of the panel concluded, rejecting a challenge by the conservative Thomas More Law Center. Notably joining the majority opinion was Judge Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of President George W. Bush and a former law clerk to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
July 31, 2013 |
The House is expected to hold yet another symbolic vote this week on a bill to neuter the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, once again taking aim at the much-unloved "individual mandate" -- the requirement that virtually all adult Americans obtain coverage, starting in 2014. The measure ( HR 2009 ) would bar the Treasury Department from implementing or enforcing the two 2010 laws that make up Obamacare. The goal is to stop the Internal Revenue Service (which is part of the Treasury Department)
March 29, 2012 |
In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. "I absolutely reject that notion," he responded. But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his healthcare law might not be in such a mess today. At the Supreme Court this week, both sides basically agreed that the Constitution allows the federal government to enact a national health insurance plan - even a government-run single-payer plan.
July 17, 2013 |
House Republicans continued their crusade to dismantle Obamacare on Wednesday, but an announcement from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo should have stopped them in their tracks. The fact that it didn't shows that Republican lawmakers are so determined to undermine the law, they don't care what might happen to their constituents. At issue are deceptively simple bills to delay two provisions of Obamacare (a.k.a. the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) for a year -- that is, until after the 2014 elections, when Republicans hope to regain control of the Senate.