Constitutional Issues vs. Obama Healthcare Law

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Body
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The health care bill brought a mixture of reactions from various quarters including lawsuits that challenged the constitutionality of the bill. Despite several efforts made by previous American presidents to actualize this bill, it was still a huddle. However, the bill eventually came into being after Barack Obama the current United States president signed it in March 2010 hence leading to a complete change in the healthcare system (The New York Times, 2011). This legislation enabled over thirty million Americans to be able to access affordable healthcare. Consequently, the main aim of this bill is to subsidize the cost of medical care using federal resources hence enabling middle and lower-class citizens to access affordable medical care. Additionally, it also aimed at expanding Medical aid in the country.

Body

This legislation enables American citizens to get private medical coverage at subsidized costs. It also prohibits insurance companies from denying insurance cover to individuals with preexisting conditions. Additionally, it also set up a committee of experts to regulate the government repayment to those individuals who showed significant improvement after the administration of treatment. Moreover, it also creates an incentive scheme for the insurance provider companies in terms of bulk rather than the number of individual covers. Before enactment, the bill faced strong opposition from the Republicans (The New York Times, 2011). This was evident when they did not vote for it; instead, they voted for its repeal. Moreover, the legislation faced several challenges including its unconstitutional nature. However, this legislation is pending in most district courts, and a few have ruled on it. The most controversial clause is that it requires all American citizens to have a medical cover or pay a fine.

This is infringing the basic right of an individual’s freedom of making personal decisions and the way of living. This act goes against Article I of the United States of America constitution and the tenth amendment. Furthermore, the fine imposed for non-compliant citizens includes the capitalization of direct taxes, which is against the law. This condition goes against Article I of the constitution and specifically sections two and nine. Consequently, it also goes against the sovereignty of the American states. For instance, it requires Florida to increase its uptake of enrollees to fifty percent and broaden its medical care eligibility. As a result, Florida State will spend additional resources to implement this requirement (The New York Times, 2011). Additionally, the citizens living in Florida will have to get medical coverage or face a fine. The act goes ahead and makes mandatory the federal-state partnership, which was previously voluntary where the federal government removes the discretion of the plaintiff and the related state. This is against the very principle of federalism which is one of the foundations of the country.

This goes against the tenth constitutional amendment of the country. Additionally, the health care act violates the citizens’ liberty, which the constitution mandates and it imposes penalties on individuals who do not comply with this act. It is like forcing people to buy private services and in the end calling it public policy. Consequently, the fine limit is not set hence giving congress a leeway on which amount to imposing. However, forcing Americans to buy medical cover is unconstitutional and unlawful by the fifth and the tenth amendment of the constitution, which include commerce and tax respectively. Moreover, forcing patients to buy medical cover and threatening them of losing their social security benefits is unlawful and unconstitutional. It also inflicts harm on physicians who run surgery clinics excluded from Medicare. As much as several people have opposed the bill based on a constitutional technicality, the bill has some positive and helpful aspects. For instance, the act gives the citizens a choice whether to purchase medical coverage or pay a tax that is equal to the value of the cover. This money will then subsidize the cost of medical cover for the other individuals that are will buy the medical cover. Consequently, the constitution accords power to congress to impose taxes and spend the money for the general welfare. In this case, Congress is using the tax revenue generated from noncompliant individuals to improve and provide better medical services to the citizens, which is constitutional (Health Care Reform ProCon.org, 2010). Additionally one of the fundamental mandates of congress is to provide an incentive to make public utilities affordable and accessible by all and for this reason, going against the health care bill is going against the very principles of taxation that govern the country. Furthermore, it is overruling the previous programs that congress has successfully executed using this constitutional provision.

Radicals are defending the fundamental right of individual freedom. They claim that the government should not force individuals to buy medical cover but, on the other hand, they are also encouraging people not to pay tax, which is also unconstitutional. However, the new medical bill has enabled millions of Americans to access quality and affordable medical care, which was a mirage to many. The biggest beneficiaries of this bill are the lower and middle-class earners because it subsidizes the premiums of medical cover (Health Care Reform ProCon.org, 2010). Moreover, the passing of this bill into law restores confidence among the American people because even if an individual loses a job he or she can be able to get medical cover at a very affordable rate. Additionally, it has subsidized the cost of prescribed medicine. It has also enabled American citizens to receive free preventive medical care from medical insurance companies. Furthermore, it has enabled people who have preexisting conditions to receive medical insurance. This was not possible before the passing of the law. Most of the medical insurance companies avoided individuals who had preexisting conditions. However, the law now states that an insurance company cannot drop an individual because he or she has fallen sick. Most American citizens have compared this to the Social security fund that has helped many people. The law has systematically organized a committee that oversees implementation in the country. Similarly, it has increased competition in the insurance industry because the government provides incentives to the companies that offer cover to American citizens in bulk. Consequently, the American people can access high-quality medical services at an affordable rate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this law has brought major changes in the medical sector, it has affected the American people positively has brought much-needed change. Due to the passing of this law, the medical cover has now become very affordable to many American citizens. Moreover, it has enabled them to access high-quality medical services and the medical services sector has now experienced high liquidity (Health Care Reform ProCon.org, 2010). This is because of government involvement in subsidizing the medical cover costs and putting it mandatory for everyone to have a medical cover or pay a fine. The passing of this bill into law has greatly expanded the medical sector because of its nationwide impact. Atlanta court of appeal is the latest court to rule against the passing of the medical insurance law terming it as unconstitutional. However, the previous courts have rules in favor of the law. Consequently, there is a lot of support from the public in passing this law because of the wide range of benefits that they stand to get.

Works Cited

Health Care Reform ProCon.org. “Are the new health care reform laws constitutional? – Health Care Reform. ProCon.org. 2010. Web.

The New York Times. Health Care Reform News. The New York Times. 2011. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Constitutional Issues vs. Obama Healthcare Law

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)