The Affordable Care Act debate was one of the most important and most public examinations of the Constitution in our history. At the forefront of that debate were the bloggers of the Volokh Conspiracy who, from before the law was even passed, engaged in a spirited, erudite, and accessible discussion of the legal issues involved in the case.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to increase health insurance quality and affordability, lower the uninsured rate by expanding insurance coverage, and reduce the costs of healthcare overall. Along with sweeping change came sweeping criticisms and issues. This book explores the pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act, and explains who benefits from the ACA. Readers will learn how the economy is affected by the ACA, and the impact of the ACA rollout.

An incisive biography of the Supreme Court's enigmatic Chief Justice, taking us inside the momentous legal decisions of his tenure so far. John Roberts was named to the Supreme Court in 2005 claiming he would act as a neutral umpire in deciding cases. His critics argue he has been anything but, pointing to his conservative victories on voting rights and campaign finance. Yet he broke from orthodoxy in his decision to preserve Obamacare. How are we to understand the motives of the most powerful judge in the land? In The Chief, award-winning journalist Joan Biskupic contends that Roberts is torn between two, often divergent, priorities: to carry out a conservative agenda, and to protect the Court's image and his place in history. Biskupic shows how Roberts's dual commitments have fostered distrust among his colleagues, with major consequences for the law. Trenchant and authoritative, The Chief reveals the making of a justice and the drama on this nation's highest court.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Health Care Case, NFIB v. Sebelius, gripped the nation's attention during the spring of 2012. Like the legislative battle leading to adoption of ?Obamacare?, the litigation took many unexpected twists and turns, culminating in a surprising, fractured and confusing decision from the Supreme Court. This volume gathers together reactions to the decision from an ideologically diverse selection of the nation's leading scholars of constitutional, administrative, and health law.

This short book analyzes the Obamacare case - focusing on many points the Supreme Court was never told about - including the fact that the constitutional framers themselves had approved mandates to buy health insurance! "Anyone who cares about the Supreme Court's approach to constitutional issues - and especially about the claims of some Justices that they try to follow the Constitution's original meaning - must read Einer Elhauge's devastating analysis of what all nine Justices, and the hundreds of advocates whose briefs and arguments they studied, simply failed to take into account when the Supreme Court decided the Health Care Case of 2012. No history of that decision will be complete unless it includes this brilliant and eminently readable little book - a book that deserves to become an instant classic." - Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor, leading constitutional law scholar, acclaimed Supreme Court advocate, and author of many books, including the highly influential treatise, American Constitutional Law. "An illuminating analysis of the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare that offers rigor and insight, written by a brilliant legal mind." - Amy Chua, Yale Law Professor and author of World on Fire, Days of Empire, and Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. "Einer Elhauge is the single best and most incisive commentator on the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Affordable Care Act more generally. His gathering of precedent and penetrating analysis will convince you that much of the Court's arguments were mistaken." - Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania Professor and Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, former Special Advisor for Health Policy to the Obama White House OMB, New York Times columnist, and author of many books on health care. "Elhauge asked a brilliant and devastatingly simple question of the Supreme Court's so-called 'originalists.' They simply ignored it. This beautiful book tells a story history won't forget." - Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, and leading scholar and author of many books on Constitutional Law and Internet Law. "Einer Elhauge brings to the debate over the individual mandate an extraordinary combination of skills: he is deeply knowledgeable about health policy, and he is also a terrific lawyer. This book is the result of his exceptional insight, and it demonstrates why the attacks on the health care reform law were so utterly misguided. Anyone who wants to understand this chapter in our history should read this book." - David Strauss, University of Chicago Law Professor, author of The Living Constitution, and leading constitutional law scholar who has argued 18 cases before the Supreme Court. "Elhauge's lucid account of the battle over health care mandates seeks answers to important questions wherever they may lie, without letting policy preferences or political ideology drive outcomes. That's a rare and refreshing approach. He re-inspires confidence in the notion that the Constitution's principles can unite people with disparate views, rather than being bent by a bare majority to whatever preordained task is at hand." - Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard Law Professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, and author of The Future of the Internet -- And How to Stop It.

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it has come to be known, has split American society, politics and media like no other subject in living memory. It is not just the concept itself as there is a pretty general recognition that healthcare needed reforming in the US. It is more the nature and implications of the system that seem to have stirred up a veritable hornets nest of protest – even outrage. Some will see in the extreme reaction of the Republican party, especially the more right-wing elements, an idealogical stance that has more to do with a hatred of big government, state spending and what they see as taking away individual choice. Some will go further and say that it is an almost pathological hatred of this presidential regime and the current Democrat culture which drives opposition to almost destructive – and maybe self-destructive – lengths. A more balanced view might be that Obamacare has both good and bad aspects but that something has to be done and the resultant impact might be necessary pain for some for a period. Whether the system delivers only time will tell. The same goes for whether it will bankrupt the country, cost jobs and competitiveness and generally weaken the US economy. Both sides of the argument have got a lot to lose – and potentially – gain if the pendulum swings their way. It will be an interesting journey.

Not five minutes after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, in March 2010, Virginia’s attorney general was suing to stop it. And yet, the ACA rolled out, in infamously bumpy fashion, and rolled on, fought and defended at every turn—despite President Obama’s claim, in 2014, that its proponents and opponents could finally “stop fighting old political battles that keep us gridlocked.” But not only would the battles not stop, as Obamacare Wars makes acutely clear, they spread from Washington, DC, to a variety of new arenas. The first thorough account of the implementation of the ACA, this book reveals the fissures the act exposed in the American federal system. Obamacare Wars shows how the law’s intergovernmental structure, which entails the participation of both the federal government and the states, has deeply shaped the politics of implementation. Focusing on the creation of insurance exchanges, the expansion of Medicaid, and execution of regulatory reforms, Daniel Béland, Philip Rocco, and Alex Waddan examine how opponents of the ACA fought back against its implementation. They also explain why opponents of the law were successful in some efforts and not in others—and not necessarily in a seemingly predictable red vs. blue pattern. Their work identifies the role of policy legacies, institutional fragmentation, and public sentiments in each instance as states grappled with new institutions, as in the case of the exchanges, or existing structures, in Medicaid and regulatory reform. Looking broadly at national trends and specifically at the experience of individual states, Obamacare Wars brings much-needed clarity to highly controversial but little-understood aspects of the Affordable Care Act’s odyssey, with implications for how we understand the future trajectory of health reform, as well as the multiple forms of federalism in American politics.

Jonathan Cohn's The Ten Year War is the definitive account of the battle over Obamacare, based on interviews with sources who were in the room, from one of the nation's foremost healthcare journalists. The Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” was the most sweeping and consequential piece of legislation of the last half century. It has touched nearly every American in one way or another, for better or worse, and become the defining political fight of our time. In The Ten Year War, veteran journalist Jonathan Cohn offers the compelling, authoritative history of how the law came to be, why it looks like it does, and what it’s meant for average Americans. Drawn from hundreds of hours of interviews, plus private diaries, emails and memos, The Ten Year War takes readers to Capitol Hill and to town hall meetings, inside the West Wing and, eventually, into Trump Tower, as the nation's most powerful leaders try to reconcile pragmatism and idealism, self-interest and the public good, and ultimately two very different visions for what the country should look like. At the heart of the book is the decades-old argument over what’s wrong with American health care and how to fix it. But the battle over healthcare was always about more than policy. The Ten Year War offers a deeper examination of how our governing institutions, the media and the two parties have evolved, and the dysfunction those changes have left in their wake.

Making the case for health reform -- Past meets present : the historical roots of Obamacare : mental health, minority health, universal health -- Pulling back the curtain : behind the advocacy for health reform and health equity -- The fight is on : a closer look at the final efforts to pass health reform -- Brushes with death -- Breaking down the law -- Moving forward : continuing the movement

This book makes the radical claim that rather than interpreting the Constitution from on high, the Court should be reflecting popular will--or the wishes of the people themselves.