Health Care and the High Court

The National Law Journal

   | 4 Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of the nation's new health care law — the individual mandate to buy insurance — as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing authority. Led by veteran reporters Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle, NLJ wraps up its coverage of the week's historic events with analysis of what the landmark decision will mean not only for the Court but for health care practitioners as well. Plus, a collection of memorable moments from the term and commentaries from top lawyers on both sides of the health care debate.

What's being said

  • phyllberg

    In my opinion, the concept (affordable healthcare) is a right, not a "reform" as proposed by one individual. DOC BARACK seems to be chock full of echoes of empty rhetoric, in general, with no plans for implementation. Re, the issue of affordable health care, it seems that each state of the union must fend for itself. Will the federal government allocate provisions per captia for such a venture?

  • A Philadelphia Lawyer's Thoughts

    This Historic decision will be studied in U.S. Law Schools forevermore. The Court only decided that the Congress had the power to pass the law persuant to its power to levy taxes. There will be a plethora of cases relative to the Constitutionality of the law's various Mandates as, for example, when a Mandate conflicts with a Religous Institution's Freedom of Conscience guaranteed by the 1st Amendment's protection of Freedom Of Religion. To borrow from an old addage from Vaudeville, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings!".

  • A Philadelphia Lawyer's Thoughts

    This Historic decision will be studied in U.S. Law Schools forevermore. The Court only decided that the Congress had the power to pass the law persuant to its power to levy taxes. There will be a plethora of cases relative to the Constitutionality of the law's various Mandates as, for example, when a Mandate conflicts with a Religous Institution's Freedom of Conscience guaranteed by the 1st Amendment's protection of Freedom Of Religion. To borrow from an old addage from Vaudeville, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings!".

  • gregreedan

    I would suggest that if the mandate is coercive, so what. The governments of many states have coercive fees. How about communities which will not allow their fire departments to put out your house fire, unless you've paid your fee. That is even a greater evil, than that imagined by the mandate for health. How about in time of war, when only able bodied people are told to go to basic training or boot camp and go somewhere to be put in harms way? For them, in many cases the mandate is to risk their physical health and well being. I do not see anyone arguing against the legality of the draft during wartime. We are a sick nation, and we have to have a "War against disease" which plagues us, because we have a failing health system. The Health Care payment mandate is a necessary step in this war.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202546362759

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.