Health insurer Aetna rejected California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones’ request not to increase premiums for its small-group PPO product.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that U.S. Supreme Court arguments about the federal health reform law show him that two major provisions of the reform may be cut, thereby making a new law necessary.

The U.S. Supreme Court continued to question the federal health reform law, raising questions today (March 28) about whether the law can function if segments it might consider unconstitutional were to fall.

If you believe the theory that a single-payer system of health insurance is the ultimate goal of the Obama Administration and Democrats, then March 27 might prove an important day.

Both houses in the Maryland General Assembly approved earlier this week bills furthering the state’s efforts to implement a federally mandated health insurance exchange.

The two justices who may be the linchpin in whether the federal health reform is deemed constitutional joined another pair of justices appointed by Republicans to probe whether Congress overstepped its authority with the individual mandate to buy insurance.

[Congress shall have power] “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” — U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

The final effect of provisions in the federal health reform law “have not been as significant” as anticipated for most businesses, according to a new study.

Both sides in the argument over the constitutionality of the federal health reform law agreed on one thing at the first hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court: that the justices can rule this year.

Two years ago the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was passed by Congress. On March 23, 2010 the President signed the bill into law. At that time I wrote the article below. Well, how did I do at predicting what would happen? I think I was pretty close on most things.