Did Congress Act within Its Constitutional Powers when Passing Health Care Reform - Research Paper Example

Health care reform has been debated for years. Both Republicans and Democrats have complained about the high cost, low quality of care, and malpractice insurance since the Clinton Era. Although there is a clear need for health care reform, the recent health care reform passed by Congress has been attacked by the right as being unconstitutional. Republican governors have filed suit against the Federal government and are trying to pass state legislation giving the option to opt out of the health care reform plan. One issue that has become contentious is the requirement all Americans must have medical insurance, or face a penalty. The other issue is the wealthy helping the poor with medical insurance. When requiring all Americans not only to have medical insurance, but to subsidize individuals that cannot afford medical insurance makes individuals question their freedoms. Is America heading toward socialism through this health care reform? I do not believe so. Health care reform could have been easier without the requirement of all Americans participating. The subsidizing of a good deal of the population could not have been changed. The health care reform bill could have been written differently, but it is not unconstitutional. The health care reform bill is over 2,000 pages (Tully 2009). It is confusing and time consuming for those in Congress, much less the average American citizen. So this discussion will be limited to two points from the health care reform bill. One point is health care would “expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured” (Jackson and Nolan 2010). This would happen through “Health Insurance Exchanges” (Jackson and Nolan 2010). Under this plan everyone would eventually have to be insured, or face a tax penalty. Wolverton 2010 states: “Anyone failing to comply with the order will incur a penalty in the form of a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year.” According to Jackson and Nolan (2010) Health Insurance Exchanges would: The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level. Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014. Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015. This is the most argued about aspect of the health care reform bill. This is the United States, not communist Russia. Everyone should be able to choose if they want health care, or not. The requirement to have health care even spreads to businesses. Pickert (2010) explains: The fee on employers who don't offer coverage would be $2,000 per worker, with firms with 50 or fewer employees exempted from this requirement. There is also a $40 billion infusion of tax credits available to small businesses to help them offer coverage beginning in 2010. Businesses and individuals would be required to have health insurance. Having no medical insurance would no longer be an option. The second point is the more wealthy Americans would be taxed more, so those in poverty can have health care as well. A subsidy will be set up for those who do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Jackson and Nolan (2010) report: Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale. Either through Medicaid or the new health care reform bill, everyone will have medical insurance. This makes the middle class and wealthy upset. The attitude is ‘if we have to work hard and provide for our family? Why can other families live off the government?’ The thought of subsidies irritate the middle class and wealthy. Given the two obvious flaws in the health care reform, I am still in favor of passing the bill. This is pure opinion, but the middle class and wealthy already pay for the medical costs of the uninsured. Since the uninsured do not visit the doctor for preventive treatment, when an uninsured person has a stroke or heart attack, the cost is much more. If an uninsured person has a medical emergency, the bills normally go unpaid. In order to compensate doctors and hospitals and offset the cost, the paying patients are billed at inflated prices. Thus the individuals crying how unfair this bill is because they will have to pay are already paying. After this legislation was passed, several States filed suit against the Federal Government claiming the bill was not constitutional. Aizenmen (2010) reports: seven more states will formally join a lawsuit originally filed by Florida and 12 other states in late March. The suit…contends that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to mandate an individual's participation in an insurance plan. The Constitution is a document that is every changing due to amendments and judicial rulings. Thus the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways. Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; This can be interpreted that Congress can collect taxes and provide services for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United State Citizens. Health care could be considered the general Welfare of the United States. The issue of freedom rises from this debate. This is constitutionally wrong because it imposes on American citizens’ right to freedom. Ron Paul (2010) declares: Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this.  The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. The founders created the Constitution to be an ever evolving document. The Constitution has grown to reflect the United States’ growth over the years. For Ron Paul and others to overlook the 14th amendment in favor of the 10th amendment is similar to arguments used prior to the Civil War. Not that I am comparing slavery to health care reform, but the argument is the same. Another Constitutional issue is the State’s Rights. Thirty-three states have filed a lawsuit. Barnett (2010) explains: Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, has said he will file a legal challenge to the bill, arguing in a column this month that reform legislation "violate[s] the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments." The 9th Amendment is the Construction of Constitution, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. The 10th Amendment is Powers of the States and People “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Both of these Amendments were ratified 12/15/1791. Mr. Cuccinelli might have had a point, but there was a war after declaring states’ rights invalid. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment states: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. This Amendment created a balance of Federal Law first and then State Law. The states can file all the lawsuits they want, but the issue of State’s Rights was solved after the Civil War. This health care reform act is very unpopular. Jones (2010) reveals: The unpopularity of this bill should not be addressed now; it should have been addressed in 2008. Constitutionally the 26th amendment gives all citizens over the age of 18 the opportunity to vote for officials. President Obama and congress were elected. Individuals complaining about this bill should have voted for someone who would not support the bill. The time to support legislation is not when the bill hits the floor, but during elections. However, the proponents of health care reform want less government. Jones (2010) reveals: If citizens want less government, than the only way to achieve that is votes. Tea Partiers (which do not represent the real Patriots at the Boston Harbor), conservative Republicans, and other parties need to be supported and voted for in order for to control Congress. The health reform act is not unconstitutional in regards to mandating individuals to buy medical insurance or by infringing on State’s Rights. Constitutionally the States do have the right to file lawsuit in the Supreme Court. Article III Section 2 states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In the end, the United States Supreme Court will decided if the health reform act is constitutional or not. Which is just what the founders had in mind when the checks and balance system was put into place. Many interpretations of the Constitution can be made, but only the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation matters. Due to the length of this health reform act, many judicial challenges will arise in the near future. In my opinion, I do not believe that this act is unconstitutional. The two main issues of freedom of choice and State’s Rights can be refuted by the Constitution. The basis of many of the lawsuits is the 10th Amendment. However, the 14th Amendment gives Federal Government and Congress more power than the State’s power in the 10th Amendment. While many Americans might not like this act, it does not appear to be unconstitutional. Bibliography Aizenman, N.C. (2010). Health-care overhaul is up against long campaign across U.S. 12 May 2010. The Washington Post. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Barnett, R. (2010). Is health-care reform constitutional? 21 March 2010. The Washington Post. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Jackson, J. and J. Nolan. (2010). Health care reform bill summary: A look at what's in the bill. 22 March 2010. CBS News. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Jones, J.M. (2010). In U.S., 45% favor, 48% oppose Obama health care plan. 9 Mar. 2010. Gallup. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Paul, R. (2010). The problem with the healthcare bill is that it's blatantly unconstitutional. 22 Mar. 2010. Businessinsider.com. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Pickert, K. (2010). Details of Obama's health care plan. 22 Feb. 2010. Time. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Tully, S. (2009). 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform. 24 July 2009. CNNMoney.com. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. U.S. Constitution Online. (2010). The United States Constitution. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Wolverton, J. (2010). Senators call healthcare bill unconstitutional. 3 Jan. 2010. The New American. Accessed 18 June 2010. Online. Read More