Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

University of Georgia School of Law

2013

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Death Panels And The Rhetoric Of Rationing, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard Jan 2013

Death Panels And The Rhetoric Of Rationing, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This essay offers an explanation for the United States' continued resistance to universal health care as grounded in two taboos: taxation and rationing. Even we were willing to pay more in taxes to directly subsidize the cost of medical care for those in need, rather than our current system of indirect subsidization through private insurance risk-pooling and cost-shifting, we still would face the unavoidable reality of resource limitations. Attempts to limit resource consumption, however, have been strongly opposed, as evidenced by the "death panels" controversy. Governor Palin's grossly erroneous characterization of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) rendered …


Plunging Into Endless Difficulties: Medicaid And Coercion In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard, Nicole Huberfield, Kevin Outterson Jan 2013

Plunging Into Endless Difficulties: Medicaid And Coercion In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard, Nicole Huberfield, Kevin Outterson

Scholarly Works

Of the four discrete questions before the Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Medicaid expansion held the greatest potential for destabilization from both a statutory and a constitutional perspective. As authors of an amicus brief supporting the Medicaid expansion, and scholars with expertise in health law who have been cited by the Court, we show in this article why NFIB is likely to fulfill that promise.

For the first time in its history, the Court held federal legislation based upon the spending power to be unconstitutionally coercive. Chief Justice Roberts’ plurality (joined for future voting purposes …