Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

One of the hottest topics on the news docket today is a monumental Supreme Court case that could essentially define the first term of our president.  The Supreme Court will spend 3 days discussing the constitutional legality of Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.  In essence, the act requires virtually every American citizen to receive health insurance, whether through Medicare, Medicaid, employer provided options, or from a private insurance company.  If an American fails to agree with this mandate, he or she will be forced to pay a steep annual penalty.  The Supreme Court hearings come after years of the act undergoing deep scrutiny and revisions by Congress.

The crux of the bill, the individual mandate, is what has put our nation’s opposing parties in arms.  Former Solicitor General Paul Clements from Florida is representing the 26 states that are suing the national government on the notion that Obamacare is in direct violation of the constitution.  “The mandate represents an unprecedented effort by Congress to compel individuals to enter commerce...,” stated Clements in his opening arguments to the Supreme Court’s 7 Justices on March 27^th.  Clements goes on to observe that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution limits the federal government to regulating commerce, and does not allow it to enforce commerce.  Opponents of the act claim that Obamacare breaches the constitutional limits set in place by our current system of government by forcing individuals to purchase something against their own free will.  The court case of United States v. Lopez is usually cited, with opponents pointing out that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was ruled unconstitutional as the Supreme Court determined that the Commerce Clause prohibited the U.S. government in interfering with activity (in this case gun possession) that is not directly related to economic activity.  Furthermore, it is argued that if the regulation of health care is ruled constitutional, then where exactly does the buck stop in terms of the government’s economic power?  In the case of Wickard v. Filburn of 1942, the U.S. Government forced a farmer (Filburn) to cease growing his own wheat crop and purchase instead from the open market in order to help boost his local economy during the Great Depression.  ‘How far,’ ask stringent opponents of the ACA, ‘is too far?’    

In response to the alleged breaches of constitutionality made by the opposition, defenders of the ACA argue that because the health care industry comprises such a large fraction of our national economy, the U.S. Government is not overstepping boundaries in regulating it.  In reference to the Lopez case, the government was not able to regulate gun control since it is not directly related to economic activity, whereas the service of healthcare is coming from and going back to the pockets of American citizens, making it one of the most dynamic of economic activities.  Supporters explain that healthcare makes up nearly 1/6 of our national GDP and therefore should be and can be regulated under the federal government as interstate commerce.  Furthermore, it is pointed it out that healthcare is a service that cannot necessarily be considered an option. Unlike choosing to purchase a car or a house, we are bound to need a form of payment for our healthcare when we inevitably get sick.  In that sense, the act is not ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase something, but instead providing a service that will most surely be used at some point in their lifetime.  When individuals with no health insurance get sick today and hospitals are obliged to treat them, an insurance paying citizen’s premium rises roughly $1000 for the year.  A system with universal health care provides a safety net for those people unable to afford health care on their own.  Proponents of the bill go on toexplain that Obamacare will eliminate the exclusion of health care to individuals with ‘pre-existing conditions.’  Currently, private insurers prevent a large number of individuals from receiving health insurance benefits on the basis of pre-existing conditions that may cost insurance companies more money on that patient in the long run.  Defenders of Obamacare claim that the ACA keeps the U.S. Government within the bounds of the constitution by regulating an obvious economic activity.  

One thing is clear: both parties of our government agree that our current healthcare system is fundamentally broken and in need of desperate change.  However, it is the question of the legality and monetary consequences of the Affordable Care Act that has seen itself on the court’s floor.  As usual, we leave the question up to you: Does President Obama’s Affordable Care Act overstep the constitutional limitations of the federal government?

Does President Obama’s Affordable Care Act overstep the constitutional limitations of the federal government?