The Health Care Dilemma - Essay Example

?The Health Care Dilemma On March 23, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or more popularly known as Obamacare was signed by President Barack Obama into law. The healthcare reform was a centerpiece policy of his administration and was vigorously pursued in the first year of his term. The law reported Cornwell “was the biggest overhaul of the US health care system in half a century, reorganizing a $2.5 trn sector that accounts for one sixth of the entire national economy” (2011). Essentially, it nationalized health care, reformed the American private health insurance sector and will work to provide universal coverage for all Americans through the “individual mandate” concept, which rules all Americans to buy insurance otherwise they will face a fine. This federal legislation is a flawed policy that needs to be repealed or amended, at the least. The fact is that it is unconstitutional, un-American and half-baked piece of legislation that has been passed in order to save President’s Obama’s face in his drive to deliver an election campaign promise. Un-American Universal coverage or the mandate for everyone to buy insurance is against American values. The United States has thrived and prospered through the freedom by which its enterprises and its citizens conducted their affairs. With the nationalized health care, the government would be encroaching on the rights of individuals to choose and decide what is best for themselves. In addition, the government is taking more responsibility for welfare than what is necessary. The country has trudged on and has actually grown in the past decades, with the government taking a laissez faire attitude and giving free rein to enterprises and nurturing capitalism. The nationalized health care law is pandering to the people through its mantra of social justice but the fact is that it is against the American ethos that defines poverty and how individuals are responsible for their own fates. Elaborate welfare systems such as the Obamacare, are inherently misguided because, instead of the social justice or addressing inequality, they are more prone to breed social ills simply by promoting the rejection of individual responsibility. Obamacare is against the American individualism and liberal policies that has worked for the American experience and the country to its current economic status and to sacrifice it just to satisfy some presidential rhetoric is tantamount to eroding the American economic fabric and social fabrics. Constitutional Question The Obama administration, with all its policies that advances welfare and big government is ensuring an American transition towards socialism. This development cannot proceed without sacrificing certain of civil liberties. This is already being demonstrated in the nationalized health care. The legislature has taken upon itself sweeping powers in order to curtail certain constitutional rights in order to pass the Obamacare legislation. With the law, the federal government is, in effect, forcing Americans to qualify under health coverage requirements, threatening them with punishments in the process. For many legal experts, this is unconstitutional. The state of Virginia, for instance, has already filed a lawsuit against the healthcare law, arguing that there is a legal precedence outlawing such an act. Particularly, it stated: Regulation of non-economic activity under the Commerce Clause is possible only through the Necessary and Proper Clause... The Necessary and Proper Clause confers supplemental authority only when the means adopted to accomplish an enumerated power are 'appropriate', are 'plainly adapted to that end', and are 'consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution.' Requiring citizen-to-citizen subsidy or redistribution is contrary to the foundational assumptions of the constitutional compact (5-6). The above ruling explicitly cites how the nationalized health care is unconstitutional by virtue of its mandatory redistribution of service and wealth with the subsidy to the entire citizenry. It points to the constitution’s Commerce Clause, which outlines how regulation on non-economic activities such as health care is prohibited. Currently, several other states have lodged their respective lawsuits, challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform act on the strength of this provision. Flawed Legislation As previously mentioned, the law has been rushed in Congress just to satisfy the rhetoric of a single-minded President. No less than some members of Obama’s own party have expressed reservation on the watered-down law passed in 2010. A survey, for instance, found that the level of “strong satisfaction” among Democrats stands at a meager 31 percent (Angus Reid Public Opinion 2010). One of the most compelling arguments against nationalized healthcare law is its cost. The Congressional Budget Office reported that Obama’s health care plan creates a minimum of $240 billion annual deficit in the US federal budget (Blackwell and Klukowski 2010, 137). This is aggravated by the fact that today, the US budget deficit is running at a postwar record high. The Conservatives are right when they argued that the law is wasteful and that policies that needed to be implemented should be about curtailing expenditures. The nationalized healthcare will expand the government further and require more money, making it unsustainable as years pass by. Moreover, Obamacare, as part of the liberal economic policy, fails to reconcile with the fundamental economic principle of supply and demand. “If you give everyone,” wrote Blackwell and Klukowski, “health care that they don’t think they’re paying for, it can only lead to more headaches and shortfalls than we have now” (137). Conclusion Repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will serve America better both from the social and economic standpoints. First, it robs the country of its important values by taking away the responsibility from individuals. Instead of taking care of their own life and lifestyles, making decisions for them, the law makes the government and other people - by virtue of their taxes - responsible for each of the American’s health. Economically, the argument is obvious: we must not spend on what we cannot afford. The government shouldering the insurance of almost 50 million Americans is not viable. Granting that providing universal health care is, indeed, social justice and noble, the argument becomes irrelevant it would be at the expense hundreds of billions of dollars annually – money that can be allocated in more pressing problems. A new policy, hence, should be drafted. The fundamental objectives of the universal health care, which are social justice and equity, can also be achieved without forcing each citizen to purchase their insurance. Making health care more affordable by encouraging competition, effective and legitimate regulation of the health care industry, combined with reasonable government subsidy, can make this possible. This approach is more acceptable because it does not only ensure social justice by making healthcare available and accessible to every one. Rather, it is also legitimate, as citizens’ rights are not violated and that the government would no longer spend huge money year after year to cover the cost of universal subsidy. Works Cited "Americans Split on Health Care Legislation Signed by Obama." Angus Reid Public Opinion. March 25, 2010. Web. 24 May 2011. Blackwell, Ken and Klukowski, Ken. The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency. Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot, 2010. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. No. 3:10CV188. US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. March 2010. Print. Cornwell, Rupert. "A year on, Obama's healthcare reforms are still a work in progress" The Independent. March 22, 2011. Web. 24 May 2011. Read More