[repost] I have a piece up at The Atlantic updating my case that the enemies of the ACA misrepresented the individual mandate in the Supreme Court, that the cadre of oppressed citizens they conjured up is a phantom, and that the law's creators worked under a self-imposed "limiting principle," doing their utmost to minimize the financial burden imposed by the mandate.
Below, a few posts that flesh various parts of the argument compressed
in the Atlantic piece. A full index of my posts on the ACA in the
Supreme Court, along with outside sources relevant to my argument, is here.
Misrepresentation of the mandate in the Supreme Court: Why it still matters (5/10)
Three possible surprise rulings on the Affordable Care Act (6/15)
Attention, Justices Kennedy, Roberts et al: Read the young people's brief (5/5)
The ACA offers catastrophic coverage: the AP notices (4/10)
Marty Lederman concurs: the individual mandate could be trimmed, not killed (4/5)
Go tell the justices: the ACA has a catastrophic coverage option (3/31, updated 4/2)
And, for the record, the 3/28 post by a
healthcare attorney who picked up the plaintiffs' core card trick more
or less in real time during oral argument: Ragbatz on the catastrophic coverage options in the ACA.