Free Essay Disclosing ObamaCare Pros and Cons

Pros and Cons of ObamaCare

The second major provision was the expansion of Medicaid, which forced States to increase the eligible bracket or risk losing all the federal funding for the Medicaid program. As such, States were required to provide coverage to adults, regardless of their marital status or the number of children, whose income was a certain percentage of the federal poverty level and who were previously ineligible for coverage. In the National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius case, the petitioners, National Federation of Independent Businesses et. al were seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA, particularly regarding the two main provisions ("National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services,", 2016). However, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed the ACA in part. In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Individual Mandate requirement stipulated by the ACA was not constitutional on the basis that Congress violated its powers to regulate commerce. To reach the verdict, the court argued that forcing people to participate in commerce by purchasing insurance or risk fines went against the mandate of Congress aimed at regulating trade rather than initiating it. Additionally, the bench noted that upholding the provision would be tantamount to giving Congress the power to dictate what people do not do and would open the doors for it to compel commerce rather than regulate it (Bass, n.d.).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

ObamaCare Essay

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Medicaid expansion infringed and violated the constitutional rights, which assure that Congress has within its powers, to pay debts, and provide for the general welfare of the entire country. The basis for this ruling was Article I section 8, cl. 1. of the Constitution which only gives Congress the power to establish cooperative state-federal partnerships. Furthermore, this clause emphasizes that such relationships are only valid if the States voluntarily and knowingly agree to the terms stipulated. However, by coercing states to participate in the Medicaid expansion or lose funding, Congress, and the ACA went against the national system of federalism stipulated in the constitution (Shor, n.d.). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld all other clauses and stipulations of the Affordable Care Act.

The courts were tied by the law in making their decisions. Consequently, the ruling cannot be considered to be in the best interest of the people. The overturning of the two clauses means that premiums on policies will continue to be high as people still wait until they are sick to purchase policies. Furthermore, by curtailing the expansion of Medicaid, more and more people continue to fall prey to private companies that offer dubious policies with very little coverage at high prices.

References

Aggarwal, N. & Rowe, M. (2011). The Individual Mandate, Mental Health Parity, and the Obama Health Plan. Administration And Policy In Mental Health And Mental Health Services Research, 40(4), 255-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-011-0395-3

Bass, E. Health Care Reform: Has the Supreme Court Already Embraced the Individual Mandate?. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2070325

National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services,. (2016). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393

Rosenbaum, S. (2011). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice. Public Health Reports, 126(1), 130–135.

Shor, B. ACA Implementation Votes in the States: Insurance Exchange, Medicaid Expansion, and Anti-Mandate Provisions. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2271783