The Supreme Court on Tuesday considers the main constitutional question in its review of the nation’s health-care overhaul, whether Congress has the power to require almost all Americans to secure health insurance or pay a penalty.
The justices have scheduled two hours of arguments — twice the normal allotment — to consider the issue. The questions of the limits of government power has animated the nation’s debate over the health-care law, which has been lauded by President Obama, passed by a Democratic Congress in 2010, and roundly denounced by Republican officeholders and the candidates who want to take Obama’s place.
The Obama administration has argued that Congress has the authority to impose what it calls the “minimum coverage provision” under its power to regulate interstate commerce and its call to solve national economic problems. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that most Americans have health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty on 2015 income tax payments.
The measure set off a blitz of legal challenges, and its opponents at the court are 26 states and a private business group, the National Federation of Independent Businesses. They argue that the government has exceeded its authority.
People who do not buy insurance, they say, are by definition, not engaged in economic activity. And they contend that there is no precedent for empowering Congress to essentially force otherwise inactive people to enter one of the markets that Congress can regulate.
The government counters that because virtually everyone will need health care, a person who chooses to forgo insurance is engaged in economic activity: They are effectively making an economic decision about how they will pay for their eventual health care — either by paying for it out of pocket, or by passing the costs on to hospitals, governments and ultimately other patients.
Congress certainly must have the ability to regulate health-care spending, which accounts for nearly 18 percent of the nation’s economy, the government argues.
“As a class, the uninsured shift tens of billions of dollars of costs for the uncompensated care they receive to other market participants annually,” the government’s brief to the court said. “That cost shifting drives up insurance premiums, which, in turn, makes insurance unaffordable to even more people.”
The government also maintains that the mandate is a necessary component of the law’s new regulations on the insurance market — including its prohibition against insurers discriminating against people with pre-existing health conditions.
Unless virtually everyone is required to obtain insurance, healthy people would have an incentive to take advantage of the new insurance rules by waiting until they are sick to buy insurance. This would skew the risk pool, forcing insurers to either pull out of the market or cover the additional cost by raising their rates to unsustainable heights.
The challengers complain that the government’s logic has no limits. If Congress can use such reasoning to justify compelling people to buy a commercial product, what can’t it do?
The justices have scheduled two hours of arguments — twice the normal allotment — to consider the issue. The questions of the limits of government power has animated the nation’s debate over the health-care law, which has been lauded by President Obama, passed by a Democratic Congress in 2010, and roundly denounced by Republican officeholders and the candidates who want to take Obama’s place.
The Obama administration has argued that Congress has the authority to impose what it calls the “minimum coverage provision” under its power to regulate interstate commerce and its call to solve national economic problems. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that most Americans have health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty on 2015 income tax payments.
The measure set off a blitz of legal challenges, and its opponents at the court are 26 states and a private business group, the National Federation of Independent Businesses. They argue that the government has exceeded its authority.
People who do not buy insurance, they say, are by definition, not engaged in economic activity. And they contend that there is no precedent for empowering Congress to essentially force otherwise inactive people to enter one of the markets that Congress can regulate.
The government counters that because virtually everyone will need health care, a person who chooses to forgo insurance is engaged in economic activity: They are effectively making an economic decision about how they will pay for their eventual health care — either by paying for it out of pocket, or by passing the costs on to hospitals, governments and ultimately other patients.
Congress certainly must have the ability to regulate health-care spending, which accounts for nearly 18 percent of the nation’s economy, the government argues.
“As a class, the uninsured shift tens of billions of dollars of costs for the uncompensated care they receive to other market participants annually,” the government’s brief to the court said. “That cost shifting drives up insurance premiums, which, in turn, makes insurance unaffordable to even more people.”
The government also maintains that the mandate is a necessary component of the law’s new regulations on the insurance market — including its prohibition against insurers discriminating against people with pre-existing health conditions.
Unless virtually everyone is required to obtain insurance, healthy people would have an incentive to take advantage of the new insurance rules by waiting until they are sick to buy insurance. This would skew the risk pool, forcing insurers to either pull out of the market or cover the additional cost by raising their rates to unsustainable heights.
The challengers complain that the government’s logic has no limits. If Congress can use such reasoning to justify compelling people to buy a commercial product, what can’t it do?
8 comments:
I agree with those who contend agaisnt whether or not Congress has the right of authority over the nations health-care regulations. If taken into consideration those who cannot pay for health insurance are of course the ones who must pay a penalty. Yes that makes perfect sense in the "fair" side of it, but when looking at it in a more logical sense, it's completely ridiculous because they're the ones who can't afford it in the first place. So, in all actuality we're basically making them pay the fine for being poor. That, to many I'm sure, makes absolutely no sense.
This landmark case will have lasting implications for years to come despite the ruling. There are many points for and against the health care bill, but the decision of the SCOTUS will not just decide a path for this bill, but will set a precedent for many cases to come.
What it boils down to is that there is a provision in the ObamaHealth care that states that by 2014 all Americans must have purchased health care on there own, or the government will penalize them on their taxes. A lot of people feel that it is unconstitutional that the government is making them buy health insurance. They government should not have the right to make you buy health insurance.
I've been researching a lot of stuff about Obamacare and the different approaches that people are taking in regards to it. One of them is the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. People who are against Obamacare state that the government has NEVER forced the population to buy something or face consequences. Through reading different articles, however, I've learned that during the revolutionary war, "a law was passed requiring every citizen to purchase a musket".. Which I found quite interesting. Could this be a large part of why Obamacare believes in making everyone purchase healthcare? I'd love to know.
I still don't understand the argument that it is constitutional for the federal government to force individuals to purchase a product. Even if the mandate were to benefit society infinitely, on principle the government can't make people purchase something just for existing. It's not the same as a conditional purchase such as car insurance. Disregarding all speculation as to the benefit of Obamacare, the mandate is unconstitutional; the government can't force us to buy something just because they think it's good for us. If that were the case, should it be legal for the government to mandate the purchase of broccoli? If everyone ate lots of broccoli, society would be greatly benefitted!
I still don't understand how anyone could argue that it's constitutional for the federal government to mandate the purchase of a product. How is it legal for them to make us buy something just for existing? I mean, it's not the same as a conditional mandate such as car insurance. Disregarding any speculation on the potential benefit of a health care mandate, on principle it shouldn't be allowed. If the government's duty were to improve society in this fashion shouldn't there be a broccoli mandate too? If everyone ate lots of broccoli, society would be greatly benefitted!
As the artical stated, it is unconstitutional to force people to engage in commerce and it is an absurd stretch to say that it is justified by the commerce clause. This is a perfect example of the constitutional twisting done by liberals when they think they are being hindered by the constitution. If they can justify this with the commerce clause then a savy lawyer could justify just about any goverment take over of our lives and that is a scary thought.
The main debate, in this article, revolves around whether health care is a commercial product, like groceries, or an essential insurance, like the insurance needed on a car in order to drive it. By making health care mandatory, the government denies U.S. citizens the right to make their own decisions in regard to how they insure themselves. On the other hand, it removes the risk that a healthy person without insurance may face insurmountable medical cost if in a terrible accident. It comes down to whether we trust American citizens to makes their own wise choices, or whether we need to throw in the towel and have the government force them to make wise decisions.
Post a Comment