I have a short piece out at the New England Journal of Medicine titled The Legality of Delaying Key Elements of the Affordable Care Act. The piece offers what I hope is a clear, concise explanation for why, in my view, several of the ACA delays are legally questionable. (I’ve explored some of the ideas here at TIE.) The piece also describes why even supporters of the ACA—and I am emphatically a supporter—should worry about the delays.
At the same time, the Journal has published a competing account from Tim Jost and Simon Lazarus. In their view, the delays are routine and sensible exercises of executive discretion with a sound constitutional pedigree. I don’t agree with everything they say, but I’m pleased to see the competing perspective so ably represented.