What Didn’t Happen: A Non-Functioning Health Care System if the Entire Law Was Overruled

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Frank Pasquale says:

    I agree, and that is a very important angle on the law almost entirely missing from the journalistic (or legal) treatment of the cases.

    It’s possible that the Democrats would entirely capitulate and pass this:

    But then you probably have at least 50 million still uninsured, and many more underinsured, for years.

  2. Shag from Brookline says:

    Query: Does Article III empower the Court to regulate commerce among the states, or merely the power to deregulate such commerce?

    As to Peter’s prediction, if such chaos resulted, would it have enhanced Obama and the Democrats politically this November? Was CJ Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott enough to cause dread, by Scott!, for Roberts? Take a peek at Chuck Krauthammer and George Will’s columns in today’s WaPo as they go through a huge pile of right-wing spin from which they hope an elephant will emerge – or did the metaphoric elephant create the pile?

  3. Shag from Brookline says:

    This should have been a Brown v. Board of Education moment for the Court, a unanimous decision, finally accepting the importance of healthcare for a civilized industrial nation. ACA isn’t perfect. There should be improvements down the road, hopefully in a bi-partisan manner. Healthcare for all is that important, close to being a right, as FDR had proposed in his Second Bill of Rights speech in 1944. Libertarians who got theirs perhaps could care less about others, which is another sign of careless libertarianism.

  4. Peter Swire says:

    In terms of needing improvements down the road, the budget and reconciliation process each year in the Senate will be the biggest must-pass moment that will shape the future of this bill. People who care about this issue may need to learn more about what can and cannot happen through reconciliation.

    Everything else usually requires 60 votes in the Senate.