{"title":"《ACA的修复和更新蓝图》。","authors":"J. Cohn","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s decision in King v Burwell this past summer may turn out to be a watershed moment. The lawsuit, crafted by longtime opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), challenged the federal government’s authority to offer health insurance subsidies in roughly two-thirds of the states. A decision for the plaintiffs would have crippled the law’s new private insurance marketplaces in those states, forcing millions of people to lose coverage. But the Court rejected the lawsuit, with 2 Republican appointees joining the 4-member Democratic minority.","PeriodicalId":78777,"journal":{"name":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"667-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Blueprint for Repair and Renovation of the ACA.\",\"authors\":\"J. Cohn\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-0009.12156\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court’s decision in King v Burwell this past summer may turn out to be a watershed moment. The lawsuit, crafted by longtime opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), challenged the federal government’s authority to offer health insurance subsidies in roughly two-thirds of the states. A decision for the plaintiffs would have crippled the law’s new private insurance marketplaces in those states, forcing millions of people to lose coverage. But the Court rejected the lawsuit, with 2 Republican appointees joining the 4-member Democratic minority.\",\"PeriodicalId\":78777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"667-70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12156\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12156","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
去年夏天,最高法院对King v Burwell案的裁决可能会成为一个分水岭。这场诉讼是由《平价医疗法案》(ACA)的长期反对者精心策划的,挑战了联邦政府在大约三分之二的州提供医疗保险补贴的权力。对原告有利的裁决将削弱该法案在这些州新建立的私人保险市场,迫使数百万人失去保险。但最高法院驳回了这一诉讼,两名共和党任命的法官加入了由4名民主党议员组成的少数党。
The Supreme Court’s decision in King v Burwell this past summer may turn out to be a watershed moment. The lawsuit, crafted by longtime opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), challenged the federal government’s authority to offer health insurance subsidies in roughly two-thirds of the states. A decision for the plaintiffs would have crippled the law’s new private insurance marketplaces in those states, forcing millions of people to lose coverage. But the Court rejected the lawsuit, with 2 Republican appointees joining the 4-member Democratic minority.