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
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?
