Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Big Waiver Under Statutory Sabotage, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Big Waiver Under Statutory Sabotage, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Faculty Scholarship
The Affordable Care Act's State Innovation waiver allows federal agencies to suspend the most controversial parts of the statute for states to pursue alternative paths, while keeping the federal funding provided by the statute. This "big waiver" provision has the potential to enable states to pursue transformative health reforms, while preserving the affordability and universal coverage aims of the federal statute. Big waivers like this one carry theoretical promise, which largely depends on the strength of the federal statute's baseline infrastructure. This Essay considers early implementation of the State Innovation waiver as a test for big waiver theory - and …
The Body Politic: Federalism As Feminism In Health Reform, Elizabeth Mccuskey
The Body Politic: Federalism As Feminism In Health Reform, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Faculty Scholarship
This essay illuminates how modern health law has been mainstreaming feminism under the auspices of health equity and social determinants research. Feminism shares with public health and health policy both the empirical impulse to identify inequality and the normative value of pursing equity in treatment. Using the Affordable Care Act's federal health insurance reforms as a case study of health equity in action, the essay exposes the feminist undercurrents of health insurance reform and the impulse toward mutuality in a body politic. The essay concludes by revisiting-from a feminist perspective-scholars' arguments that equity in health insurance is essential for human …
Competitive Federalism: Five Clarifying Questions, Larry Yackle
Competitive Federalism: Five Clarifying Questions, Larry Yackle
Faculty Scholarship
Before I looked into the two fine books we are reviewing here,1 I would have said that arguments from federalism are typically fraudulent, neither more nor less than deliberate attempts to cloud the discussion of real issues. Now that I have read what Sotirios A. Barber and Michael S. Greve have written, I am largely confirmed in my prejudices. But my suspicions about federalism contentions have been shaken a bit – enough to ask some questions of Professor Greve, whose answers might persuade me that there is some good in this federalism business, after all. I doubt it, but I …