English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The Affordable Care Act seeks to remedy the problem of information asymmetry in the health insurance market by mandating that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and by requiring the States to expand Medicaid or lose existing federal funds. In NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts held that Congress’ power to regulate under the Commerce Clause could not justify the Individual Mandate to purchase insurance, but that the penalty could be construed as a tax and upheld under the taxing power. Chief Justice Roberts also held the Medicaid Expansion to be an unconstitutional use of spending power, but determined that the Medicaid Expansion could remain with the States having the option to keep existing funding and not expand or expand and take the incremental funding. Eight Justices disagreed with the Chief Justice on the Individual Mandate, and six Justices disagreed with the Chief Justice on the Medicaid Expansion. This creates a paradox in that a supermajority of the Court believes the case was wrongly decided on both main questions. More distressing is the scant analysis given in all of the opinions to the constitutional constraints on taxes.

The Taxing Power Of The Federal Government And The General Welfare: What Are The Limits In The Wake Of NFIB V. Sebelius?