Forum: health care reform

Health Care Reform THESIS MENT The study represents the main argument of the Obama Administration in front of the US Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Moreover, this study also highlights the reason depicted by the US Supreme Court for rejecting the argument of the Obama Administration along with presenting personal opinion regarding the standpoint taken by the Supreme Court.
The Obama Administration brought forward certain arguments about Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in front of the US Supreme Court. It told the US Supreme Court that the main aim of this care Act is to enhance the quality along with affordability of health insurance by growing the private and public insurance coverage. Moreover, the care Act is beneficial to reduce the healthcare cost of the government. The government also argued in front of the Supreme Court that Affordable Care Act can help the people for affording the health insurance in a lower cost. Furthermore, this Act will offer six to twelve private companies to drive down their costs (Feinblum, “ What Does Obama care Mean for me? 14 Steps to Making the Most of the Law”). The Obama Administration argued that this care Act also increases Medicaid eligibility to those people who belong to the lower income group. This Act provides certain assurance that Federal government would reimburse the entire added health expenses till the year 2016 (Tribe 873-886). The government further argued that the PPACA directs any non-exempted persons who fail to maintain a minimum extent of health insurance and the person who is not otherwise covered must a pay a tax penalty calculated as a percentage of the income of household (Tribe 873-886).
In this regard, the US Supreme Court rejected this argument for the prevalence of four issues in the constitutionality of the PPACA. The Justice team decided that the most contentious provision is an individual mandate which necessitates individuals to have health insurance, which is lawful as a tax although it is not permissible under the commerce clause of Constitution. Moreover, the court revealed that the healthcare Act was very much disappointing for many people because it is not easy to enroll in the health insurance website of the government. Additionally, technical problem also hampers the accessibility of the healthcare Act. The other reason behind rejecting the argument is that this healthcare Act necessitates individual people to purchase and keep Federally-approved forms of health insurance. The ill-famed individual mandate in Section 1501 surpasses Congress’ authorities under the “ Commerce Clause, Taxing Clause, and/or Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution” (Lambert, “ Why the Affordable Care Act, as Construed by the U. S. Supreme Court, Will Fail”). Moreover, another reason for rejecting the argument is Medicaid development that needs states to pay part of the healthcare cost and the government can impose fine on any state which refuses to abide by these requirements by stripping all Medicaid funds from that state (Klukowski, “ The Supreme Court and Obama care: eight possible outcomes”).
From the overall comprehensions related to the augments presented by the Obama Administration and the US Supreme Court, it can be said that the PPACA related holding is reasonable. This is because the care Act has primarily been made for the upper class people not for the lower class people. Moreover, this Act also at times negatively impacts the consumers as well as patients in the US.
Works Cited
Feinblum, Benjamin. What Does Obama care Mean for Me? 14 Steps to Making the Most of the Law. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
Klukowski, Ken. The Supreme Court and Obamacare: Eigth possible outcomes. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
Lambert, Thomas A. “ Why the Affordable Care Act, as Construed by the U. S. Supreme Court, Will Fail.” University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper 2012-31 (2012). Print.
Tribe, Laurence H. The Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable care Act: Swimming in the Stream of Commerce. 35 (2010): 873-886. Print.