Take a peak at four great resources on the ongoing Health Care Court decision.
Courtly Battle in Health-Care Case (Wall Street Journal)
The fight over President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul has featured nearly three years of name-calling and shouting matches. But don’t expect to hear supporters accused of creating “death panels,” or opponents of preferring the uninsured to “die quickly,” when the issue lands at the Supreme Court next week.
In healthcare case, Supreme Court weighs entwined provisions (Los Angeles Times)
Reporting from Washington — Like most Americans, Lauren Woodard has mixed feelings about President Obama’s healthcare law. She’s glad the law guarantees that she’ll always be able to get insurance. But she doesn’t like the requirement that most Americans buy coverage.
Health Law Heads to Court (Wall Street Journal)
In taking up President Barack Obama’s health overhaul Monday, the Supreme Court wades into an issue that not only could sway this fall’s elections but also could help define for generations what Congress is and isn’t entitled to do.
The court this week hears three days of arguments on the law’s constitutionality, with a ruling expected in late June. The administration and its allies say the court must uphold the law to ensure that Congress can tackle national problems by employing comprehensive solutions. In jeopardy, critics say, is the fundamental American conceit that the federal government should be restricted in what it can require of citizens.
Read Analysis Of The Supreme Court Health Reform Arguments (Health Affairs Blog)
Last week the Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments on the challenge by 26 states and several private plaintiffs to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the ACA’s minimum coverage requirement – sometimes known as the “individual mandate” – was authorized neither by Congress’s Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, nor by its power to levy taxes. The state plaintiffs also argued that they were being unconstitutionally coerced to participate in the ACA’s Medicaid expansion