Healthcare is one of the biggest issues in our modern society. It
is vital in determining how easily we can access and afford what we need to
maintain our health; whether that is medicine, procedures, or basic check ups.
So it comes as no surprise that it is one of the main deciding factors in
what candidate we choose to support in our presidential elections. When Obama was elected he enacted the
Affordable Care Act. The Act
itself outlines a plan in which it will provide health insurance coverage to more
than 94% of Americans but still staying under Obama’s 900 billion dollar
budget, thus it hopes to reduce the nations budget deficit over the next ten
years. The Act itself has recently
come under fire and is currently undergoing review in the Supreme Court due
requirement of “minimal essential coverage,” also known as the individual
mandate. The mandate itself
requires that every American have minimum health care insurance or be charged
with a penalty in their tax return.
It is being declared unconstitutional under the first Article of the
Constitution.
I
find it interesting that Obama was elected partially based on his plan for
healthcare and now two years after the act has already been implemented it has
gone to the Supreme Court because it was declared “unconstitutional.” Especially after the Act has already
claimed to have given affordable health care to 2.5 million young people. If this act was unconstitutional why
hasn’t something been said before now?
More specifically why hasn’t something been said before the 8 or so
months leading up the 2012 presidential elections? I find it hard to believe that they are just now finding
this act unconstitutional when the plan has been public since Obama had his
first presidential elections in 2008.
The correlation between the two of these events could be completely
independent and I may just be reading to far into the circumstances, but I
found that connection to be interesting.
Furthermore, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. The act has already given us evidence to it’s success with
the example of the 2.5 million young people who now have affordable health
insurance as well as lowering the cost of prescription drugs for the
elderly. The individual mandate
simply requires that everyone be required to have the minimum health insurance,
which I think is fair to the citizens that have been paying for other people’s
healthcare through their taxes because they did not have insurance. I do understand that some people truly
can not afford health care and that’s where I think we need to step in and
address those people, but the majority of our population can afford healthcare but
merely have not stepped up and gotten insurance since they can get healthcare
for free and paid for by tax dollars. The Supreme Court justices are apparently looking for a way
to compromise if the individual mandate is seen as unconstitutional, and want
to find a way to keep the act intact if this event should occur. Like I’ve said before this is merely a teenagers
perspective, I may be completely wrong or misguided but this is what I have gotten
from the information presented about this issue.
Sources
You’re absolutely right. Universal healthcare is a decisive issue and an important one on the minds of voters going into this election. However, it has been a decisive issue for some time. Hilary Clinton, for example, has been an advocate for an American universal healthcare plan for over 20 years, and in fact has proposed similar bills to Congress in the past.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that you’re wrong in proposing the idea that the presentation of the bill to the Supreme Court is conveniently timed to draw attention to it, but you have to realize that people were calling it unconstitutional from day one. The American political system takes time. Even if this is a political maneuver by the Right to make voters more aware of the downfalls of Obama’s healthcare plan, I’m sure that they would have liked it to go to the Supreme Court sooner.
As far as if it’s not broken, don’t fix it, this issue isn’t as simple as that. Is it true that the bill has provided coverage for young people that would have otherwise been uninsured? Yes. However, the flip side of the coin is that requiring insurance companies to cover young people – who are the most reckless and injury prone demographic- drives up insurance premiums. Some people rightly argue that an individual mandate only serves to drive up costs. Prices for anything are a function of the market, and people can charge whatever they want to for whatever that have to sell. Then, you’re back where you started. It doesn’t matter if there’s an individual mandate or not if you don’t have the money to pay for it.
I agree on your position of Obama’s Affordable Care Act. I think the biggest question of the process is rejecting the already implemented Act is the Supreme Court 8 months prior to the 2012 election. The Supreme Court just implemented a new law stating that everyone, no matter what level of crime (including misdemeanors), are subject to strip searches. I do not know if you and I should look up the definition of unconstitutional but I believe strip searches are a violation of the 4th amendment, which “Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizes and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause”. An act allowing every citizen to have minimum health insurance coverage does not seem to violate anything but the threat of the Republican's loss in the 2012 election.
ReplyDeleteI’ve had the opportunity to read through my colleague’s thoughts on Healthcare. While well meaning, this post unfortunately reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial process. The Supreme Court does not merely “decide” when to determine whether or not an act of Congress is constitutional or not. There is a carefully-developed process. This process was carefully developed to ensure that the Court considers only those issues that most demand its attention. The Court, first and foremost, cannot consider the constitutionality of comparing proposals. First, Congress has to actually pass a law that is then signed by the President. Then, lawsuits are filed on the district court level challenging the constitutionality of the act. Decisions are made in those suits which are then appealed to one of several courts of appeals. The court of appeals then passes judgment on the wisdom of the district court of opinion. Generally, the case only makes it to the Supreme Court if the appellate courts disagree. This process takes time, but is important to ensure that the Supreme Court’s time is dedicated only to issue upon which there is true disagreement. In this case, as the “Obamacare” case has worked its way through the judicial process, various appellate courts have disagreed on the constitutionality of this law. This is a valid reason for the Supreme Court to consider the case. If the appellate circuits were to agree on the constitutionality of this law, then there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to consider the issue. It may seem that this case is convenientttly designed for political purposes, but this is, in fact, a accurate reflection of judicial review of an act of Congress as our founders intended – through carefully-orchestrated judicial review. While I agree that at its core, politics underlies nearly all decisions of every branch of government, this case seems to be following a course that is typical of all important legislation. It would be unfair to judge that the Supreme Court is scheduling this case differently merely for political purposes.
ReplyDelete