There has been a great of debate on whether charging citizens a financial penalty for not having health insurance is a violation of our constitutional rights.
1. In your first post, answer all of the questions below.• Do you believe this provision in the Affordable Care Act is constitutional? Support your argument.
• Find an article that describes a part of the ACA law or other health care law that has been challenged in the courts and describe the findings here. Also provide a link to the article you found.
• What are the ethical boundaries associated with mandating state care for people?
2. Respond to at least two classmates. In your response to classmates, consider the position of the classmate and make a counter argument that expresses your own opinion on the post. Be respectful, but share your thoughts.
Student 1:
• Do you believe this provision in the Affordable Care Act is constitutional? Support your argument.
I believe charging citizens a financial penalty for not having health insurance is unconstitutional. United States Department of Health and Human Services declared the law unconstitutional in an action brought by 26 states, on the grounds that the individual mandate to purchase insurance exceeds the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Florida v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., 648 F.3d 1235, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 214, 108 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2011, 2011 USTCP 50573 (11th Cir. 2011)
Legal opposition to the mandate centers on its constitutionality, that is, whether the U. S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to require people to engage in a commercial act against their will, as well on its seeming infringement on states’ rights. The individual mandate is viewed as an assault on individual liberty.
org/publications/health-progres…”>https://www.chausa.org/publications/health-progres…
• Find an article that describes a part of the ACA law or other health care law that has been challenged in the courts and describe the findings here. Also provide a link to the article you found.
The state attorneys general, led by Texas, filed
their lawsuit with a Texas district court in February 2018. The crux of their argument is that the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius upheld under Congress’ taxing power the ACA’s requirement that individuals have coverage or pay a penalty, and the 2017 tax law zeroed out that penalty. Without the tax, they claim, the coverage requirement is unconstitutional.https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/suit-challeng…
• What are the ethical boundaries associated with mandating state care for people?
The government should not be involved in providing healthcare for citizens. When healthcare is free for citizens there is no consequences for their lifestyle and behavior. For example, if I smoked a pack a day (20 cigarettes) for a month, it would cost me on average in the state of Idaho $210. If I lived in New York, it would cost me $1,000. If you can afford to smoke, you should be able to afford the consequences of your health problems. I believe Congress overstep the ethical boundary by providing health insurance. If Congress can control if you can or cannot get insurance what will make them stop at controlling if you can have a cookie due to BMI.
Student 2:
Hi Class,
I believe in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and I do think it is constitutional because I believe access to healthcare should be a human right and that people should be responsible for chipping in for their own healthcare (if even just a little). As Furman (2014) stated, the Affordable Care Act is helping to improve the quality and efficiency of care for all Americans, contributing to better health outcomes while reducing costs.
A conservative judge in a federal court in Texas ruled the whole ACA unconstitutional because of the elimination of the individual mandate. This case is on appeal and will eventually be heard by the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs claim that in 2012 the Supreme Court held in NFIB v. Sebelius that Congress lacked the authority to enact the law’s individual mandate as a legal requirement but could impose a tax on people who failed to comply. In 2017, Congress reduced the tax to zero. The plaintiffs argued that the mandate is now no longer a tax and thus unconstitutional. Moreover, they claim that without the mandate the entire remaining ACA is invalid. The Supreme Court’s options for deciding this case are shaped by the complicated history of litigation over the ACA. The origins of the case go back to 2012, when the court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA’s penalty on individuals who lack health coverage. In December 2017, however, President Donald Trump signed into law a tax bill that eliminated the ACA’s penalty on individuals who lack health coverage. Afterward, several Republican state attorneys general, led by the state of Texas, filed a lawsuit arguing that the health care statute itself, or at least the parts of the act closely linked to the individual mandate, were no longer valid. Democratic states and the House of Representatives stepped in to defend the statute. In December 2018, a Texas district court struck down the ACA but stayed its ruling pending appeal, concluding that the individual mandate is so connected to the law that Congress would not have passed the ACA without it. On appeal, in Texas v. United States, a split panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deemed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but the panel instructed the district court to rehear the matter and “to employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the mandate.” However, on March 2, 2019, before the district court could carry out the appellate court’s directive, the Supreme Court announced it would it would hear the case in its terms begging in the fall of 2020, blocking the lower courts from taking further action. The Supreme Court will decide what is now titled Texas v. California.
Ethical boundaries present themselves in several different ways regarding mandated state care. Some people have a religious objection to insurance in general which include health insurance. Very few, but they exist. Some people do not want the government telling them what to do even if it benefits them. Those of us who do have health insurance support those that refuse to pay for coverage and cannot pay for medical care out of pocket. For example, federal law known as EMTALA requires hospitals that accept federal funds via Medicaid are required to treat anyone that presents to the ER regardless of their ability to pay. The hospitals, to avoid losing money, charge those that have insurance more to cover the costs. Lastly, there is a public policy interest in having everyone pitch in to pay for health care. Being surrounded by healthy people is better for everyone. Also, no one is left bleeding and dying at the front of the hospital doors.
Explaining California v. Texas: A Guide to the Case Challenging the ACA | KFF
Six Economic Benefits of the Affordable Care Act | whitehouse.gov (archives.gov)
0 comments