The big news this week is the Supreme Court debating the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as "Obamacare." The President's lawyers argue that the law is constitutional because the commerce clause of the constitution, which authorizes congress to regulate inter-state trade, gives congress the power to regulate the health care industry, which accounts for 18% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). The much publicized "individual mandate" portion of the law will require most Americans to either purchase health insurance individually, or pay a penalty to cover the potential costs of not doing so. The President argues that not paying for insurance is "an economic decision to pay for your own health care," albeit one that is mostly covered by the federal government. Opponents of the law, such as groups that represent big business, libertarian organizations, and 13 U.S. states, argue that the Federal government has no constitutional right to force American's to buy health insurance. They contend that, while the commerce clause explicitly authorizes the government to regulate economic activity between the states, congress has no right to regulate economic inactivity.
Other arguments that are being heard by the court concern the "severability" of the individual mandate from the rest of the (gargantuan!) 2,700 page law, and whether or not the government's proposed expansion of Medicaid is "unduly coercive."
I think it goes without saying which side the President is on regarding "Obamacare." The Republican candidates all strongly oppose the law. Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum say that on their "first day" in office they will issue an executive order to "repeal Obamacare." Ron Paul, a licensed gynecologist, insits that doctor's have an "implicit right", because of their Hippocratic Oath, to provide free health care for those in need. While I certainly respect Dr. Paul's opinion that health care should be a "charitable benefit provided by doctor's," I clearly don't have as much faith in people being that good to others all the time.
In my view, the individual mandate is extremely hard to defend on constitutional grounds. Yesterday, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy asked "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" That question rings true, and as much as I would like a much improved health care system with greater amounts of coverage, I don't think the government really as a good answer for that question. That being said, I hope that the court doesn't strike down the entire law. Expanding Medicare and raising the age eligibility to be on a parent's health plan until they are 26 are both worthy changes that could help plenty of people out, especially in this rough economy.
Sources:
-The Economist's guide to the health care case
-Rick Santorum Campaign website
-Mitt Romney Campaign website
-Ron Paul Campaign website
Other arguments that are being heard by the court concern the "severability" of the individual mandate from the rest of the (gargantuan!) 2,700 page law, and whether or not the government's proposed expansion of Medicaid is "unduly coercive."
I think it goes without saying which side the President is on regarding "Obamacare." The Republican candidates all strongly oppose the law. Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum say that on their "first day" in office they will issue an executive order to "repeal Obamacare." Ron Paul, a licensed gynecologist, insits that doctor's have an "implicit right", because of their Hippocratic Oath, to provide free health care for those in need. While I certainly respect Dr. Paul's opinion that health care should be a "charitable benefit provided by doctor's," I clearly don't have as much faith in people being that good to others all the time.
In my view, the individual mandate is extremely hard to defend on constitutional grounds. Yesterday, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy asked "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" That question rings true, and as much as I would like a much improved health care system with greater amounts of coverage, I don't think the government really as a good answer for that question. That being said, I hope that the court doesn't strike down the entire law. Expanding Medicare and raising the age eligibility to be on a parent's health plan until they are 26 are both worthy changes that could help plenty of people out, especially in this rough economy.
Sources:
-The Economist's guide to the health care case
-Rick Santorum Campaign website
-Mitt Romney Campaign website
-Ron Paul Campaign website
I think free healthcare to those who cannot afford it is prominent in today's society. With all-time high unemployment rates, a lot of people barely have money to pay their mortgage or send their children to college. The least that can be done is to provide health care. I do agree though that the whole law should not be dismantled. Being able to be under one's parent's health care until 26 is undeniably a life-saver.
ReplyDelete