Healthcare reform has officially been brought to the Supreme
Court. For three days, President Obama’s
2010 federal health care reform law will be the topic of contentious discussion
between the nation’s 9 highest-ranking judges.
Day 2 of discussion marked a shift
of attention to the most controversial issue within the healthcare law: the
individual mandate. The individual
mandate requires Americans above a certain income level to either purchase a
health insurance plan or pay a tax penalty, starting in 2014. This issue has raised a red flag amongst the
conservative majority of the Supreme Court that the law would give the
government excessive power over individual rights. The Interstate Commerce Clause of the
Constitution states that Congress has the power to “regulate commerce” and
impose taxes to promote the general welfare; however, conservative Justices warn
that Congress should not have the power to regulate inactivity in a market as
such a ruling would open up the possibility of requiring Americans to buy other
products, like broccoli.
Justice Kennedy, who often provides the decisive vote, is
troubled by the fact that it seems Congress is changing "the
relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental
way" by forcing Americans to buy a product like insurance for the
first time. Chief Justice John G.
Roberts Jr. shared Justice Kennedy’s skepticism saying that the Constitution
puts limits on federal power, limits which would be eliminated if the federal
government required Americans to purchase health insurance. He argues that healthcare
is not unique because individuals could face any medical emergency at any
time and the law would require people to purchase medical insurance covering
services they may not need. Therefore, forcing
Americans to purchase healthcare insurance would be forcing healthy people to
provide a huge subsidy to private insurance companies. In other words, people who don’t participate
in the healthcare market would inevitably make it much more expensive for those
who do. On the other hand, Justice
Stephen Breyer argued that participation
in healthcare is not optional because every individual will seek some
medical service at some time in his/her life, regardless of whether or not he/she
is insured. Justice Verrilli shared
Justice Breyer’s point of view, adding that healthcare is a market in which
“virtually everyone participates,” so the mandate would just be a "regulation
of their participation in [the healthcare] market.”
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court will
rule on this issue. Precedence seems to
be in favor of upholding the insurance mandate since the Supreme Court has not
struck down a major federal regulatory law, on the grounds that it grants
excessive federal power, since 1936.
But, the law faces tough
competition from the conservative judges, who hold the majority (5-4), on
the Supreme Court.
Rate this posting:
{[['
']]}
']]}