President Obama's healthcare reform is being implemented nationwide, even though federal judges disagree on a major provision. Two federal judges, appointed by Bill Clinton, have ruled that the so-called "mandate" is constitutional. This week a third, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that it's not. Is it constitutional to require healthy people to buy insurance even if they don't want to? The issue probably will be resolved by a single justice of the US Supreme Court, but will it make any difference? Would healthcare reform still go into effect without the "mandate" Republicans hate? Would support grow for the "public option" Democrats love?
Healthcare, Politics and the Law
Dahlia Lithwick - Legal Affairs correspondent for Slate - @dahlialithwick, Ezra Klein - Vox - @ezraklein, David Sirota - International Business Times - @davidsirota, Jonathan H. Adler - Case Western Reserve University - @jadler1969