Department of Bioethics & Interdisciplinary Studies, Adjunct Department of Public Health, Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina 27834, USA.
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2011 May-Jun;17(3):195-201. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e318215c50b.
Congress of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was immediately challenged by lawsuits attacking the constitutionality of the legislation. The lawsuits, joined by over 2 dozen state's attorney generals, contend that PPACA is an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. Specifically, the suits argue that the individual insurance mandate portion of the law is justified by neither the "Commerce Power" nor Congress' authority to "tax" and provide for "the general welfare." This essay outlines and analyzes the constitutional arguments for, and against, PPACA forecasting the likely resolution of the debate if the suits reach the US Supreme Court.
国会的病人保护和平价医疗法案（PPACA）立即受到了攻击该立法违宪的诉讼的挑战。这些诉讼由 20 多名州检察长提起，他们认为 PPACA 是联邦权力的违宪行使。具体而言，这些诉讼认为，法律中个人保险强制部分既没有“商业权力”，也没有国会“征税”和“提供普遍福利”的权力作为依据。本文概述并分析了支持和反对 PPACA 的宪法论点，并预测了如果这些诉讼到达美国最高法院，辩论可能的结果。
