Patt Morrison for November 14, 2011

How was the Affordable Care Act intended to work?

A man protests against the recent health

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

A man protests against the recent healthcare legislation as he attends a Tea Party protest against Democrats and U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington, D.C., Nov. 15, 2010.

Controversy over President Obama's universal health care reform is finally hitting the Supreme Court early next year, with oral arguments by March and a decision expected in June – just in time for elections.

Since the President signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, 26 states have banded together in opposition, questioning the federal government's right to force individuals to buy health insurance. Other issues at hand is whether Congress went too far in overstepping its boundaries, and what it means for existing Medicaid funds.


With legal implications abound, what about the practical implementations of an individual mandate? How was it intended to work in 2014, when it was slated to take effect? If it stands, how would it be applied? And if it fails, what is the next step? But what are the practical implications of an individual mandate? If it stands, how would it be applied? If it doesn’t, what is the next step? We hear from a liberal and conservative take.


Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies, CATO Institute

Jamie Court, president, Consumer Watchdog

Kavita K. Patel, adjunct assistant clinical professor, UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine

blog comments powered by Disqus