Pro vs Con: Is The Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional?

Two powerful arguments for an issue dividing the nation

A liberal reporter Jeff Toobin, who wants the laws to be upheld, said that the first day the oral argument was a train wreck, and the next day he said it was a plane wreck, clearly showing he thought that the government had a hard time. My only disagreement with his assessment is that our Constitution is being vindicated, and there’s nothing that’s a train wreck or a plane wreck if the Supreme Court strikes it down. 

Read the rest of Gaziano’ PRO argument here.

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University

Loop21: Why is the Supreme Court currently reviewing the minimum coverage provision of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: A case was filed against the Department of Health and Human Services by a number of states, eventually 26 states, as well as a business organization and a couple of individuals challenging several provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The challenge was accepted by the District Court, and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and so it’s now before the Supreme Court.

[ALSO READ: Dr. Ben Carson Isn't Feeling Obamacare]

There have been several cases that have upheld the Constitutionality of the statue, but you can’t have a situation where the statue’s Constitutional in some parts of the country, and unconstitutional in other parts of the country, so the Court has taken it upon itself to resolve that question.

Loop21: Do you think the insurance provision is unconstitutional? Why or why not?

Jost: Well, there are several provisions that have been challenged by the states. The one that has been the biggest focus has been what’s called the minimum coverage requirement, a provision that requires people who can afford health insurance to at least buy a high deductible policy so that they don’t expose others to the costs of their medical care, so they won’t freeload on medical care paid for by others.

I definitely believe that it is Constitutional, as a way of making sure that people pay for their own healthcare, at least catastrophic care, and as a way of making sure that people participate in the insurance market so that the healthy people participate in the insurance market so that the insurers can sell insurance to people who have medical problems without having to worry about they are the only people who buy insurance. So yeah, it’s Constitutional.

Read the rest of Jost’s CON argument here.

[SUBSCRIBE TO LOOP 21 RSS FEED]