Fall is here, and with it the thumping fraternity music and underclad undergraduates that mark the start of a new academic year at the University of Michigan. This year, fall also brings another installment of TIE-U.
I’ll be teaching a seminar examining the legal aftermath of the adoption of the Affordable Care Act. Each week, I’ll post on a topic suggested by the reading. What will the class cover?
The Affordable Care Act has been mired in controversy since its enactment in 2010. The Supreme Court has on three occasions considered various challenges involving the Act, the House of Representatives has voted innumerable times to repeal it, and “Obamacare” is already shaping up to be a centerpiece of the 2016 presidential election. This seminar will examine the various legal disputes that have erupted around the ACA—disputes that pertain both to its constitutionality and, more generally, to the legality of the choices that the Obama administration has made in implementing it. Classes will include close looks at NFIB v. Sebelius, King v. Burwell, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, as well as the administration’s controversial decisions to delay various ACA provisions and to extend cost-sharing subsidies to low-income Americans.
The syllabus is here.
As the class progresses, I’ll add links to this introductory post. All posts will include the TIE-U tag, as well the professor (Bagley), institution (Michigan Law), course number (866), and semester (Fall 2015).
Post Index
- Federalism and National Health Reform, Part 1
- Federalism and National Health Reform, Part 2
- Can Congress make you buy broccoli? Should it matter?
- What Arkansas’s Private Option Means for ACA Waivers
- How secure is health reform?
- Why repeal the Cadillac tax when you can just delay it?
- The feds are wrong. Lots of wellness programs violate the ADA.
- Conscripting hospitals to test new payment models
