Justices hear argument that health case is premature
At the opening of three days of arguments, the justices' questions suggested that they were receptive to a point on which both supporters and opponents of the law agree: that the court should decide the case now rather than waiting until the law's penalties for not having health insurance become due. On Tuesday, the court will turn to the central question in the case, the constitutionality of the law's requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty. The argument on Monday was a sort of appetizer to Tuesday's main course, a 90-minute debate over whether the court has the authority to hear the case yet, given an 1867 law, the Anti-Injunction Act, that says taxpayers may not challenge taxes until they become due.
- CFO Exchange: Smartphones Poised to Disrupt Healthcare, Says Topol
- How Digital Strategy Shapes Patient Engagement at Boston Children's Hospital
- Half of All Primary Care, Internal Medicine Jobs Unfilled in 2013
- CNO on Hospital Redesign: 'You Can't Over-Communicate'
- Carondelet to Pay $35M to Settle Fraud Allegations
- Consumerism Drives Healthcare Branding, Rebranding Efforts
- PA Ranks See 'Phenomenal Growth,' Lack of Diversity
- Some Cancer Hospitals' Quality Data Will Soon Be Public
- 3 Traits Personality Assessments Can't Reveal
- CA Powers Up $80M HIE to 'Create Value in the Data'