|
Brett Kavanaugh on Health Care
|
|
|
Individual mandate is constitutional even with $0 tax
The Court's decision in California v. Texas concludes that the plaintiffs trying to undo ObamaCare had no business being in court. The case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required
most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The Texas plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be
declared invalid if the zero dollar tax is stuck down.In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible Government
action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."
SCOTUS outcome:Authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
Source: Reuters on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas"
, Jun 17, 2021
Supports big healthcare mergers if they save consumer costs
The market for health care mergers has been on a roll for several years. Would a Justice Kavanaugh keep that momentum going? Last year, Kavanaugh dissented from the D.C. Circuit's rejection of Anthem Inc.'s proposed $54 billion acquisition
of Cigna Corp. The majority of the court upheld a trial judge's decision to block the deal on the grounds that it would reduce competition. Kavanaugh said in his dissent that the Anthem-Cigna deal should be saved for the cost savings for consumers.
Source: Law.com in lead-up to SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing
, Jul 10, 2018
Page last updated: Mar 20, 2022