In what may be the most momentous Supreme Court case since Bush v. Gore in 2000, the nation's highest court hears arguments this week on President Obama's landmark piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act. The hearings, which cover three days, will focus on several key points: whether the case can be heard before the penalties for not obtaining health insurance take effect, whether the individual mandate is constitutional, whether the rest of the law can stand without the individual mandate, and whether the law's Medicaid expansion is constitutional.
Follow The Takeaway online and on-air for analysis, explanation, and opinion.
In this conversation with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, professor of communications and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, we hear how Democrats plan to rehabilitate the word "ObamaCare" through coordinated public relations campaigns online and off.
The case against the Affordable Care Act currently being heard by the Supreme Court was brought by 26 states. Ohio is one of those states, and in Ohio, disapproval of the health care law runs deep. Last fall, Ohio voters amended the state constitution to say that no federal or state law will require any person, company or health care provider to participate in a health care system. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine explains why he joined the suit against the Affordable Care Act.
All this week, we're talking about Department of Health and Human Services vs. Florida, the health care case at the Supreme Court. Today the Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires Americans to purchase health insurance. Failure to purchase health insurance could result in a fine. We've heard from constitutional scholars and economists for their take on health care reform and the individual mandate, and today we turn to three doctors this morning who have very different perspectives on the individual mandate.
Taxes, penalties, and tax penalties. That sums up much of what was discussed at yesterday's Supreme Court hearing on the 2010 health care overhaul bill, also known as the Affordable Care Act. Today's hearing, in which the court will focus on the constitutionality of the health overhaul, promises to be much more exciting. We speak with Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, and Monica Haymond, a legal assistant originally from California who's been sleeping outside the Supreme Court Building since Friday night, hoping to get into today’s hearing.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is now in the Supreme Court's hands, but it seems that the health care reforms then-Governor Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts will continue to haunt the GOP contender for the remainder of the campaign. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber joins us to discuss the economics of health care reform, in Massachusetts and on the national level. Professor Gruber also penned a graphic novel on the subject, titled "Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It's Necessary, How It Works."
The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law today, kicking off a three-day proceeding. The Affordable Care Act mandates an expansion of health insurance to 30 million more Americans within a decade, as well as for the ire it has roused in Republican lawmakers and citizens, alike. To look ahead to next three days of health care debate and discussion, Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, joins us.
The Supreme Court begins three days of oral arguments today on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care overhaul. People lined up outside the Supreme Court building in Washington beginning on Friday hoping to get the chance to see the proceedings today. Kathie McClure is a trial lawyer from Atlanta, Georgia, and Reverend Rob Schenck is the President of the National Clergy Council, a network of pastors and denominational leaders.