Debating on The Affordable Health Care Act - Essay Example

The judge declared parts of the Affordable Health Care Act inconsistent with the intentions of the constitution which guarantees all citizens the right to choose, therefore, according to the judge, the act was unconstitutional. In his ruling, Federal Judge Henry Hudson hinged his judgment on whether the government had the mandate to force every individual citizen to purchase health insurance. Based on this opinion, the federal judge rejected the government's argument that purchasing health insurance was a form of tax.

The judge noted that in putting in place the Affordable Health Care Act, the act’s regulatory scheme was conceived as an application of Commerce Clause powers. The federal judge rejected any attempt to stretch the Commerce Clause to allow the government mandates insurance purchases, claiming that such a move would open the gate to unrestrained federal power. For the federal government’s penalty due to noncompliance to be effective under the law, the judge opines that it must aim to affect a legitimate exercise of the Commerce Clause.

Further, Federal Judge Henry Hudson sees the Affordable Health Care Act as more that the issue of designing a scheme of universal health insurance coverage or regulation of the insurance business. According to the judge, the core of the matter is an individual's right to choose to take part in the scheme. Supporting his stand, the federal judge notes that the Constitution had given congress specific powers. Therefore, the judge claims that the power that the constitution does not give the federal government is reserved to the states while those not outlawed are reserved to the citizens.

Even as Federal Judge Henry Hudson declared the Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional, Judge George Caram Steeh found the act constitutional in the ruling of the Thomas More Law Center v. Obama case in which the judge gave an order denying the plaintiff’s motion. In his opinion, Judge Steeh noted that a refusal to get insurance amounted to an example of an activity that affect interstate commerce to a large extent.

According to the judge, those who select not to get insurance coverage have in effect made an active decision to pay for their medical expenses from their pockets. This decision, the judge added, had an impact on taxpayers, health care providers, and the insured citizens who will have to foot the bill for those who do not take insurance coverage. Further, Judge Steeh claims although the matter on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act presented an issue of first impression, there was a rational ground to make conclusions that decisions not to take insurance coverage increased the cost of coverage, therefore affecting interstate commerce.

From the point of view presented by Federal Judge Henry Hudson and judge Steeh, it is my opinion that Federal Judge Henry Hudson presents a better argument. The government should recognize its citizen’s right to choose. Tchooselize those that do not take insurance coverage is coverage dictating to them the kind of medicine they should take when they get sick. People have the right to decide the kind of treatment they need and at what time. Although it is a noble effort that would guarantee medical service to many deserving citizens, the federal government, through the Affordable Health Care Act has no legal right to force citizens to take medical coverage. If the Affordable Health Care Act becomes law in 2014 without repealing some of the sections, the law can be used as precedence by both the federal government and the state governments to force citizens to purchase some goods and services without their will. Such precedence will be contradictory to the democratic principles, which are hinged on the people’s freedom of choice.  

Further, Judge Steeh’s assertion means that any activity Americans do or do not do should be considered commerce because they are living and that Congress can use this provision to institute laws that require all citizens to take insurance coverage or face punishment due to noncompliance overstretching the law. Judge Steer bases his arguments on the government’s opinion on the participation of all Americans in insurance coverage and coverage benefits that will accrue to the people due to compliance when the Affordable Health Care Act becomes law. In effect, the judge uses political talking points to base his arguments instead of basing them on the Constitutional provisions. From the foregoing, both congress and the federal government will have failed in their mandate if they do not repeal some of the contentious clauses in the Affordable Health Care Act.