Posts tagged Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act
Last month’s Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Obamacare) produced two large surprises.
One was the needle-threading by Chief Justice John Roberts, as he did a reverse 2 ½ somersaults with 2 ½ twists in pike (degree of difficulty 3.8) in order to justify the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate (now called the “individual tax except when it’s imposed at the state level” by Republicans).
The second was the ruling that Congress could not force states to expand Medicaid by withdrawing existing Medicaid funding, but could only threaten to withdraw the projected increase in funding that would come with an expansion of the program. That makes it much more likely that states will opt out of Medicaid expansion.
Why would states opt out, and what would be the result if they do? (more…)
Employment hasn’t been recovering at a high enough rate satisfy anyone. Return to full employment will likely take more than a few years. Many have been complaining about this, so here are a few radical ideas to create jobs. I don’t think there’s any question they’d work for that purpose. But I can anticipate a lot of opposition.
- Require that businesses shorten their average work week by a minimum of five hours, setting the American “standard” work week to 35 hours. Provide tax incentives for going beyond that, by as much as an additional five hours, lowering the work week to 30 hours.
- Remove the age requirement for Medicare, to allow all Americans to get on a single-payer health care system, and allow employers to drop all insurance coverage.
- Lower the retirement age for Social Security to 60. Encourage Americans to retire earlier.
It may not be obvious how these measures could create jobs. They could lead to full employment, virtually overnight, give a jolt to the economy such as America has never seen, make us all healthier, and give us a lot more free time. Let me explain. (more…)
We have our answer regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or Obamacare). The individual mandate stands. But, as I have often pointed out, Obamacare doesn’t appear to have done much regarding “Affordable”. And yet, affordability is one of the key desires of Americans, and with good reason. We spend twice as much per-capita on healthcare as the next most spendy nation, yet we are not getting results that are twice as good. Clearly, we are getting less bang for the buck than are other countries.
But does that mean that the only path to affordability is single-payer? Or, if there are many paths, is that the best one? Some of my own recent experiences suggest that a move to single-payer may not lead to affordability at all, but Obamacare (plus a preceeding bill) may get us there — albeit not overnight — even if no new legislation is passed. (more…)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, “Obamacare”) has been subject to a great deal of polling.
A poll of the Senate on December 24, 2009 resulted in a 60–39 margin in favor.
A poll of the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 favored the measure by a much narrower margin, 219–212.
The Executive Branch was unanimous in its praise for PPACA.
The most recent polling is from the Supreme Court, which voted 5–4 supporting the constitutionality, if not necessarily the concept, of PPACA.
Now that all three branches of government have had a crack at it, where do the people stand? (more…)
Ever since the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, “Obamacare”) individual mandate, pundits have been predicting that the mandate is dead. The remaining question would then be: will the Supreme Court find the law severable, that is, can the mandate be ruled unconstitutional but the rest of the law stands? Or does the whole thing go down because of an unacceptable mandate?
The Supreme Court finally answered today. By a five-to-four vote (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissenting), the individual mandate was technically struck down as a violation of the Commerce Clause, but by a different five-to-four vote (Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting) the fine for being uninsured was not. In that regard, the Court threaded the needle, objecting to the “illegality” of being uninsured, while leaving the relevant penalty in the Act unchanged.
This decision is certainly a huge win for the Obama administration at first blush. But it may prove to be less of a win for Obama himself.
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate”, which requires all Americans to purchase medical insurance.
It has been pointed out by opponents that the individual mandate is an unprecedented requirement to engage in commerce. The Congressional Research Service, for example, observed that “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.”
The Cato Institute came to a similar conclusion, that “[f]inding the mandate constitutional would be the first interpretation of the Commerce Clause to permit the regulation of inactivity — in effect requiring an individual to engage in an economic transaction.”
Yet it seems that, from an examination of history, they are incorrect. (more…)