Stephen E. Ronai is one of the deans of Connecticut health care law. For 20 years he has chaired the Health Care department of Murtha Cullina, and is currently of counsel at the firm. Recently, Ronai has been studying the legal and policy issues behind the federal Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unexpected ruling that the statute is generally constitutional, Ronai spoke with Senior Writer Thomas B. Scheffey. In an April article in the Law Tribune, Ronai analyzed some of the constitutional arguments for and against the individual mandate, which requires most adults to either the purchase health care coverage in some manner, or face a financial penalty for failing to do so. Ronai, like many others who read the briefs, predicted the matter would be decided on the precedents, which have recognized broad congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The most famous of these cases is Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing government regulation of an Ohio farmer’s wheat crop, even if not intended for commercial sale. The court concluded that interstate commerce would be affected indirectly, and that was enough.
