Monday, April 9, 2012

Is the Repeal of ObamaCare the End of the Universal HealthCare Debate?

With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare, creating massive controversy and political unrest in recent weeks, nearly every political pundit, media commentator, and politician has weighed in on the debate. President Obama has vehemently defended his bill, urging the Supreme Court to let the legislation stand, while Republicans and even many Democrats have responded with criticism that this bill provides too much power for the government and infringes on citizen’s liberty.

At the crux of the issue exist three separate but related judicial questions to be decided by the Supreme Court after the oral arguments have drawn to a close that include a question of standing, a question regarding the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” provision, and a question pertaining to the expansion of Medicaid.

Now, although President Obama has dedicated much of his first term and political clout to the creation and implementation of this bill, the reality of the situation looks as though the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional. Due to the repeal of this legislation, the opposition, consisting of many Republicans and some Democrats, will view this as a resounding victory and a message to the American public that Government power is limited and in a Democratic society, citizens enjoy full liberty.

However, is this the true message that this decision is sending? Does this precedent ultimately silence the universal healthcare debate? For the sake of America’s future, I genuinely hope not. Healthcare must become an essential right and policy makers need to continue their zealous battle to create a sustainable, efficient system where that vision becomes realty.

Over 40 million Americans live every day afforded no health insurance coverage. Therefore, whenever a member of this deprived minority visits an emergency room, the American taxpayers foot the bill and the already overwhelmed and inadequately resourced health insurance industry continues to flounder. Consequently, it seems logical the Supreme court, given the current state of the health care industry, would be compelled to push this bill forward but this is not entirely the case.

In order to adequately comprehend the complexities of the three judicial questions the Supreme Court is considering, as step back must be taken to further articulate the issues. First, in regarding the question of standing, because the bill has not been put into effect yet, some argue the constitutionality of the bill cannot be decided. The Supreme Court has been empowered with Judicial Review (i.e. Marbury v. Madison) but the scope of that review extends to deciding issues that have already happened, not potential issues. Second, and most importantly, there is the issue of what has been coined as the “individual mandate” provision. This provision stipulates that those who have neither employer nor government-funded health care must obtain minimum health insurance coverage or face fines from the federal government. Lastly, the judges will decide on the constitutionality of the expansion of Medicaid, which increases benefits and coverage for those deemed to have pre-existing conditions, increases coverage to 30 million Americans through reformed funding from the government, as well as modifies certain aspects of both private and public health insurance programs.

Where the issue has found national controversy lies in the implications of the answer to the second question of the “individual mandate.” Opponents of this argue the government has no right to tell Americans they must buy healthcare. Many view this as a fundamental invasion of American’s civil liberties and a slippery slope for government intervention on individual’s lives. Conversely, the Obama administration, as well as many other countries and international organizations, feel that health care is a fundamental right that should be protected and regulated by the government, just as any other liberties like free speech and the right to privacy have been protected and overseen.

However, the semantics of the Obamacare bill aside, universal health care, which is the true concern, is something this country desperately needs. Adversaries to universal health care claim people should not be forced to pay for others but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that they already do through taxes, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, and higher insurance premiums. Everyone deserves health care and it is the government’s job to take care of the mentally ill, children, the elderly, veterans and the millions of others who have found themselves immersed in a minority class without health insurance or adequate treatment. Health care must find it’s way into everyone’s lives.

With that said, just because the Obamacare legislation may be overturned that does not mean the discussion is over. No matter the outcome, health care reform is the most pertinent and potentially destructive social issue facing the country today. A blind eye cannot be given to this problem; this problem will not fix it self. Only through reform and universal coverage will the millions of unhealthy and ignored Americans receive justice the adequate civil liberties provided to them in the constitution.

4 comments:

  1. I really hope the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the healthcare bill. While the bill certainly wasn't perfect, it went a long way towards fixing this country's problems with healthcare. Let's say that the bill gets ruled to be unconstitutional. This will make it extremely difficult for this country to ever have sweeping reforms to healthcare on a national basis. On the other hand, maybe this could lead to the expansion of Medicare to every citizen, which would essentially fix the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice piece, I agree wholeheartedly.

    "President Obama has vehemently defended his bill, urging the Supreme Court to let the legislation stand, while Republicans and even many Democrats have responded with criticism that this bill provides too much power for the government and infringes on citizen’s liberty."

    Ugh. Since when did Washington decide they didn't like having too much power? Not passing the bill IS infringing on citizen's liberty, the liberty of LIFE. I agree that this can't just be blind sided. If the ultimate goal is to be the most economically and culturally influential nation in the world, we can't have people dying from easily cured ailments because they don't have insurance. Health care for everyone needs to be a primary concern, cause what is more important than life? Nothing.

    Not too long ago I heard a story (perhaps a myth) that a man walked into a bank and put the teller up at gunpoint, and asked for one dollar. His goal was to be put into jail so his potentially fatal disease could be cured via the care provided in prison. Whether or not it is true, it speaks volumes about the situation. Le sigh.

    -chunder

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a nice piece with a great perspective on supporting the Obamacare. However, if this legislation is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it does not mean the debate ends there; the congress and can use there congressional override powers and come up with a new law that can both support universal health care and less government spending. I believe that this is a great step to end legislation that takes too much money from hard working americans and gives it to the government who at this current time is unable to spend our money wisely. In a CNN poll, 62% of respondents said the Act would "increase the amount of money they personally spend on health care," 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm going to have to side with the Obama administration on their health care plan. I hope it passes. Even though this plan will infringe on our personal freedoms by forcing us to choose a healthcare plan, I think healthcare is an absolute necessity of any modern country. When someone goes to the hospital and has to deal with exorbitant hospital fees that may take years to pay off, the system just doesn't feel right. And I also found it interesting that the Supreme Court is trying to rule on this legislation even though it hasn't been fully enacted. We should test-run the plan first.

    ReplyDelete