March 30, 2012

MIT Economist Jon Gruber on Obamacare

The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast

Is the Supreme Court going to end Obamacare? Why is health-care reform so unpopular? And how does Obamacare affect most Americans? MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, an architect of both Mitt Romney’s and Obama’s bills, breaks down what’s at stake as the justices debate one of the most important cases before the court in decades.

Read Full Article ››

TAGGED: MIT, Supreme Court, jonathan gruber, ECONOMIST , architect , architect of both Mitt

RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

March 30, 2012
You Can't Handle the Truth About the Mandate
Joseph Lawler, RCP
The worst part of the past week's Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of Affordable Care Act was that no one involved in the oral arguments about the legitimacy of the individual mandate seemed to understand its... more ››
March 26, 2012
Obamacare Is Good for Health
People for the American Way
On the second anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Health Care Act, the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments against its constitutionality, even though legal experts from across the ideological spectrum have concluded... more ››
March 24, 2012
Liberals' Secret Fear About Obamacare Case
Philip Klein, Examiner
Ever since the first lawsuits started being filed challenging the national health care law, liberals have been trying to dismiss them as frivolous. Now, even as the Supreme Court prepares to hear six hours of oral arguments on... more ››
March 21, 2012
New Jersey Is Proof the Mandate Is Essential
Jonathan Cohn, KHN
On Monday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, the justices will also contemplate a policy issue: Is it possible to reform the private insurance market, making... more ››
March 26, 2012
The Most Surprising Legal Challenge to Obamacare
Robert Kuttner, TAP
When the Supreme Court begins its extraordinary three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, one of the oddities will be an amicus brief challenging the act’s individual mandate from 50... more ››