Supreme Court to review job-destroying healthcare lawPosted by Randy | November 15, 2011
The Supreme Court announced it has agreed to review the constitutionality of the new healthcare law. The primary question the justices will consider is whether in requiring most Americans to buy health insurance, the law oversteps its power to regulate interstate commerce.
The legal challengers include 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and individuals who say that the law will hurt small businesses and compromise individual choice on medical care. You can read more about the Supreme Court’s decision to review the law in this article in USA Today.
As you probably know, I have voted to repeal and replace the job-destroying healthcare law and I’ve taken actions over the past several months to curtail massive spending related to implementing the healthcare law. You can read about that work here. Additionally, I signed onto a brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Weigh in - Do you believe the individual mandate included in the healthcare law is unconstitutional?
Users are solely responsible for the opinions they post here and their comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Congressman Forbes.
Post a Comment
We encourage you to analyze and comment on the posts featured on this blog, but please understand that comments which include campaign content, engage in personal attacks, or include vulgar, profane, obscene, or inappropriate language will be removed from the site. Please note that there may be a brief delay in the publication of your comment.
RECENT POSTS08/28/2014 - Question of the week: Do you believe that we should reform the corporate income tax structure in America?
08/21/2014 - Question of the week: Do you support the actions being taken by local and state officials in the investigation?
08/12/2014 - Question of the Week: U.S. response to the situation in Iraq
08/07/2014 - Innovation + Education = Success
08/06/2014 - Question of the week: U.S. response to Ebola outbreak
08/06/2014 - Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion