• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Health reform and the constitutionality of the individual mandate.医疗改革与个人强制医保条款的合宪性
Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2011 Nov;12(4):236-44. doi: 10.1177/1527154411432645. Epub 2012 Mar 27.
2
Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level.购买保险,否则后果自负?:在州一级恢复个人强制保险规定。
Albany Law Rev. 2019;82(2):533-54.
3
State sovereign standing: often overlooked, but not forgotten.国家主权地位:常被忽视,但未被遗忘。
Stanford Law Rev. 2012 Jan;64(1):89-124.
4
In the balance: With the drama of Supreme Court arguments over, providers are left to worry what will happen if the individual mandate is struck down.
Mod Healthc. 2012 Apr 2;42(14):6-7, 14-5, 1.
5
California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome.加利福尼亚州诉德克萨斯州案:避免反民主的结果
J Law Health. 2024;37(3):387-410.
6
In the wake of the verdict: the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the federal health law leaves lawmakers working out what it means for their states.裁决之后:美国最高法院对联邦医疗保健法的裁决让立法者们琢磨这对他们的州意味着什么。
State Legis. 2012 Jul-Aug;38(7):46-7.
7
The individual mandate. A rancorous moral matter.个人强制医保。一个充满争议的道德问题。
Health Prog. 2011 Jul-Aug;92(4):88-96.
8
Wearing the crown of Solomon? Chief Justice Roberts and the Affordable Care Act "tax".佩戴所罗门的冠冕?首席大法官罗伯茨与《平价医疗法案》的“税”。
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013 Apr;38(2):291-8. doi: 10.1215/03616878-1966279. Epub 2012 Dec 21.
9
The constitutionality of the individual mandate.个人强制医保条款的合宪性。
N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 27;365(17):e36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1111039.
10
Showdown gets a head start: prior to ACA hearings, both sides take aim.摊牌行动抢先一步:在《平价医疗法案》听证会之前,双方就已瞄准目标。
Mod Healthc. 2012 Mar 26;42(13):12.

本文引用的文献

1
Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
J Leg Med. 2011 Apr;32(2):139-65. doi: 10.1080/01947648.2011.576603.
2
Under siege--the individual mandate for health insurance and its alternatives.
N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 24;364(12):1085-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1101240. Epub 2011 Feb 16.
3
Can Congress regulate "inactivity" (and make Americans buy health insurance)?国会能否对“不作为”进行监管(并强制美国人购买医疗保险)?
N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3;364(9):e17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1101400. Epub 2011 Feb 16.
4
A "broader regulatory scheme"--the constitutionality of health care reform.一种“更广泛的监管体系”——医疗保健改革的合宪性
N Engl J Med. 2010 Nov 11;363(20):1881-3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1010850. Epub 2010 Oct 27.
5
A plan for 'responsible national health insurance'.“负责任的国民健康保险”计划。
Health Aff (Millwood). 1991 Spring;10(1):5-25. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.10.1.5.

医疗改革与个人强制医保条款的合宪性

Health reform and the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

作者信息

Lee Jeffrey J, Kelly Deena, McHugh Matthew D

机构信息

1University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2011 Nov;12(4):236-44. doi: 10.1177/1527154411432645. Epub 2012 Mar 27.

DOI:10.1177/1527154411432645
PMID:22454219
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3422862/
Abstract

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 is landmark legislation designed to expand access to health care for virtually all legal U.S. residents. A vital but controversial provision of the ACA requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or face a tax penalty-the individual mandate. We examine the constitutionality of the individual mandate by analyzing relevant court decisions. A critical issue has been defining the "activities" Congress is authorized to regulate. Some judges determined that the mandate was constitutional because the decision to go without health insurance, that is, to self-insure, is an activity with substantial economic effects within the overall scheme of the ACA. Opponents suggest that Congress overstepped its authority by regulating "inactivity," that is, compelling people to purchase insurance when they otherwise would not. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the issues and the final ruling will shape the effectiveness of health reform.

摘要

2010年的《患者保护与平价医疗法案》(ACA)是一项具有里程碑意义的立法,旨在让几乎所有美国合法居民都能更方便地获得医疗保健服务。该法案一项至关重要但颇具争议的条款要求个人维持医疗保险覆盖范围,否则将面临税收处罚,即个人强制参保规定。我们通过分析相关法院判决来审视个人强制参保规定的合宪性。一个关键问题在于界定国会有权监管的“活动”。一些法官判定该强制参保规定符合宪法,因为不购买医疗保险(即自行保险)的决定,在《平价医疗法案》的整体框架内是一项具有重大经济影响的活动。反对者则认为,国会通过监管“不作为”(即迫使人们在原本不会购买保险时购买保险)超越了其权力范围。美国最高法院准备审查这些问题,最终裁决将决定医疗改革的成效。