Advertisement
Your Practice >>>
Obama Administration Submits Brief for ACA
Although the Supreme Court won’t hear arguments for and against the 2010 health care law until March, the Obama administration submitted its brief defending the law and the requirement that people obtain insurance.
The law’s opponents argue that Congress did not have the authority to require people, who are willing to pay their health expenses or don’t plan to seek care, to buy insurance. And if the Supreme Court strikes the individual mandate from the law, opponents contend that the entire Affordable Care Act would be invalidated.
"This Court cannot remove the hub of the individual mandate while leaving the spokes in place without violating Congress’ evident intent,” plaintiffs wrote. They argue that ACA’s core components cannot survive without the individual mandate and that the remainder of the law cannot survive without those core components.
According to the government, however, Congress was well within its rights to require people purchase health insurance because it has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In this case, it relates to “the way in which individuals finance their participation in the health care market.”
The measure, according to the administration’s brief, addresses “a crisis in the national health care market.” In 2008, the uninsured consumed $116 billion in health care services, and of that total health care providers were never compensated for $43 billion. As a result, the average family’s insurance increased by more than $1,000.
“In sum, the uninsured as a class presently externalize the risks and costs of much of their health care; the minimum coverage provision will require that they internalize them (or pay a tax penalty),” the brief reads. “This is classic economic regulation of economic conduct.”
At the end of March, the Supreme Court will hear arguements on the case. Acknowledging how serious and contentious this issue is, the court has scheduled five and a half hours for arguements instead of the typical one hour session.
The law’s opponents argue that Congress did not have the authority to require people, who are willing to pay their health expenses or don’t plan to seek care, to buy insurance. And if the Supreme Court strikes the individual mandate from the law, opponents contend that the entire Affordable Care Act would be invalidated.
"This Court cannot remove the hub of the individual mandate while leaving the spokes in place without violating Congress’ evident intent,” plaintiffs wrote. They argue that ACA’s core components cannot survive without the individual mandate and that the remainder of the law cannot survive without those core components.
According to the government, however, Congress was well within its rights to require people purchase health insurance because it has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In this case, it relates to “the way in which individuals finance their participation in the health care market.”
The measure, according to the administration’s brief, addresses “a crisis in the national health care market.” In 2008, the uninsured consumed $116 billion in health care services, and of that total health care providers were never compensated for $43 billion. As a result, the average family’s insurance increased by more than $1,000.
“In sum, the uninsured as a class presently externalize the risks and costs of much of their health care; the minimum coverage provision will require that they internalize them (or pay a tax penalty),” the brief reads. “This is classic economic regulation of economic conduct.”
At the end of March, the Supreme Court will hear arguements on the case. Acknowledging how serious and contentious this issue is, the court has scheduled five and a half hours for arguements instead of the typical one hour session.
Comments
Your comments are valuable to us. Thank you.
Username:
Website:
Comment:
pkjain,MD
i am apalled that we as the richest country in the world are debating the law which is created to provide its citizens basic affordale heath care.
i whole heartedly support the law though it need to go through changes to do what it is deigned to accomplish and acheive which i accept will take time and experts to implement in coming years.
Physicians want to take care of the patients to best possible but are forced into looking intotheir insurance plans to find the drug approvred by their plans or to get approved to treat their dieases.
Physiciians
i whole heartedly support the law though it need to go through changes to do what it is deigned to accomplish and acheive which i accept will take time and experts to implement in coming years.
Physicians want to take care of the patients to best possible but are forced into looking intotheir insurance plans to find the drug approvred by their plans or to get approved to treat their dieases.
Physiciians
January 14, 2012 - [ 1:48:32 ]
Anonymous
December 31, 1969 - [ 19:00:00 ]
Advertisement
Related Articles
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
