No: ACA "should not be regarded as an affront to state sovereignty but as a realistic embrace of state power in its active, modern form"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23262774

J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013 Apr;38(2):283-9. doi: 10.1215/03616878-1966270. Epub 2012 Dec 21.

"Our federalism" moves indoors.

Ruger TW.

Source

University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA.

Abstract

A great deal of the US Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence over the past two decades has focused on the outer limits of federal power, suggesting a mutually exclusive division of jurisdiction between the states and the federal government, where subjects are regulated by one sovereign or the other but not both. This is not an accurate picture of American governance as it has operated over the past half century - most important areas of American life are regulated concurrently by both the federal government and the states. The Supreme Court's June 2012 decision clearing the way for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to move forward thus should not be regarded as an affront to state sovereignty but as a realistic embrace of state power in its active, modern form. The PPACA is infused with multiple major roles for the states, and as the statute goes into operation over the next few years, states retain, and are already exercising, substantial policy discretion.