After being brought to the Supreme Court by the challenge from 26 states, the question as to whether or not the healthcare reform is constitutional or not has been heatedly debated.
The Reform Act dictates that every American citizen purchase health coverage commencing 2014. Yet, according to 26 states (led by Florida) by compelling everyone to purchase coverage, individual freedoms are being violated. While this individual mandate was viewed by the government as getting everyone insured and decreasing emergency room visits, those who are healthy or do not want insurance feel that paying for coverage should be an individual decision.
Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy points out that because the Act alters the relationship between government and it’s citizens, the government “has a heavy burden of justifying” the mandate.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. stressed his concern that forcing people to commit to an action buy cheap ventolin inhalers against their will is the tip of the iceberg. He fears that “once we accept that everyone is in this market” that Congress could exert their pressure for other measures.
Doesn’t this echo sounds of the past? “Taxation without representation” and the “Tea Party” were at the heart of the American Revolution. Are we doomed to repeat the past with revolution?
Why not just have those parts of the bill that we can all agree on:
- No one can be turned away from coverage with pre-existing conditions
- Those people who wish to purchase insurance but cannot afford it would be eligible for the health exchanges
- Purchase of insurance across state lines would be allowed (making premiums competitive)
Additional amendments could be discussed and voted on individually. There would be a cohesive law and no argument then.
