Columbia Law experts weigh in on Supreme Court health vote
Legal experts say the legal ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Affordable Care Act would be minimal, especially in New York.
"Everything people got in the health care law before they will still get now," Columbia Law School professor Abbe Gluck said.
Her colleague Jamal Greene said the key to Obama's victory was the argument that Congress could enforce the health care mandate by using a tax.
"The court said that the law exceeds Congress' power under the necessary and proper clause and commerce clause, but not the tax clause," Greene said.
Gluck said the ruling that deemed Medicaid expansion unconstitutional isn't very consequential because the ruling basically gives states a choice to expand Medicaid and New York has traditionally been a liberal Medicaid state.
After the ruling, state Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, (D-Manhattan) said the decision could help New York implement a publicly sponsored, single-payer health coverage.
Gluck said Gottfried's proposal wasn't far-fetched since the ruling allows a state to make such a program with a federal waiver.
"Assuming politics in New York cooperate, they can get single payer," she said.
Gluck said she wasn't too shocked that the mandate was upheld, but more surprised that Chief Justice John Roberts was the one who broke the tie.
"What was most interesting was Roberts went with the liberals but did not take Justice [Anthony] Kennedy," she said.