|
Speak Out
How should the Supreme Court rule on the health care reform law?
 By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer
The concept of health insurance has existed in the United States for over a century. Doctor’s bills are often expensive, and the system of insurance came about to help patients cover the cost when they fall ill.
A century is also about how long our elected officials have debated the role – if any – the federal government should take in providing this coverage to its citizens.
President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned on national health insurance in 1912. President Harry S. Truman attempted to push a law through in 1945, but critics and Congress denounced it as “socialized medicine.” President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965; through these programs, the government provides insurance to senior citizens and low-income citizens, respectively. Still, some felt that these laws did not go far enough in covering everybody who needed insurance, but efforts to expand it did not succeed.
In 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which required that all citizens have health insurance beginning in 2014. Under the law, insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, and those who do not have access to affordable coverage through their jobs can buy insurance with the help of government money. If people do not, they will be penalized – with fines beginning at $95.
Viewed as Obama’s signature legislation, the plan was fiercely debated, and criticized for various reasons. The old cry against “socialized medicine” argued that health care should not be provided by the government. In other words, “if you can’t afford health care, it is not my responsibility to pay for it with my tax dollars.”
New objections emerged as well, saying the government cannot force its citizens to have health insurance. More than 20 challenges to the new law have been filed, but most focus on the insurance requirement for individuals. Decisions in U.S. District Courts, then appeals courts, have been mixed. The latest ruling, from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the section in the law requiring health insurance was unconstitutional. The Justice Department decided not to ask the full appeals court to review the case, which means it can directly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration could ask it to schedule a hearing when its new term begins in October.
The issue is whether Congress can use its power to regulate commerce – provided in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution – to require people to buy health insurance. The judges who declared that section unconstitutional said it cannot. Commerce is the purchase of goods and services. If somebody decides not to purchase something, that decision is not commerce – and, according to the appeals court’s ruling, Congress has no say.
University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt III believes the requirement is constitutional based on another part of Article I, Section 8: the Necessary and Proper Clause. This says Congress can pass any law deemed “necessary and proper” for carrying out its other duties – such as regulating commerce. In other words, it can pass laws on things broader than just commerce, if they allow it to better govern commerce.
What do you think?
How should the Supreme Court rule on the health care reform law? Do you think it could save taxpayers money? Does the Constitution allow the government to require its citizens to have health insurance? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|
|
Related News
|
Related Resources
|
Share
|
|