Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Essay Example

Patient protection and affordable care act “ The patient protection and affordable care act” was enacted by the American congress in order to ensure that Americans have health insurance covers in a bid to reduce health care costs for the citizens. It had several provisions that included the individual mandate which required majority of American citizens to at least have health insurance covers (Paul et. Al, 1). This clause in other words, wants individuals who do not have insurance covers from their employers or from the government to seek insurance covers from private insurance companies. This idea was not taken positively by some American citizens. This was due to a perception that the act gave individuals who did not acquire health insurance covers the charge that was to have their incomes taxed by the internal revenue service as a penalty1. They claimed that the congress which is responsible for making laws that govern them, was indulging them in a commercial responsibility of which should not be the case. I agree with this notion as it serves as a disagreement which is aimed at protecting the rights of the minority. They act also had another provision; the Medicaid expansion program. This provision stated that the various states that make up America should provide medical assistance to adults whose income is below 133% of the federal poverty line which I feel is a good idea. This overwrote the Medicaid program that was in place during the time that offered medical assistance to expectant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly and the disabled. The Medicaid expansion program was funded by the federal government same as it used the previous Medicaid program. The act further stated that states that did not comply with the act would be denied the entire federal Medicaid funding2. This also did not augur well with some individuals as the national federation of independent business and also twenty six states were against it. They therefore moved to the federal district court to file a challenge against the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion program. The court of appeal however held that the congress was working within its constitutional mandate while passing the clause on Medicaid expansion but at the same time, it lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Chief justice Roberts in delivering the court’s opinion concluded that “the anti-injunction act does not bar the suit (US constitution part II of 648 F. 3d 1235)3. This was because the anti-injunction act stated that anyone who wished to sue for any tax must first pay the specific tax and then sue for a refund later. (Thomas, 2). The judgment was as a result in line with the constitutional provisions and befitting the democratic state of the federal government. I stand on the federal government’s side that is represented by the congress in this case. This is due to the fact that, every decision made by the federal government was focused on maintaining the interests of the American citizens who were represented by the framers. For instance, the individual mandate clause may seem harsh, but at the end of the day, the government does not stand to gain or lose a thing. Instead, the individual who does not wish to acquire health insurance cover will spend much money in the event of health expenses incurred when funding hospital bills. On the other hand, citizens who acquired health insurance cover will be at ease in the event illness since they do not have to worry about hospital bills as the insurance agency that covers them will cater for the medical expenses. Chief justice Roberts actually stated that the individual mandate was like inflicting a tax on those who did not have health insurance covers, an imposition that did not seem reasonable because, the same money that would be deducted from their taxes would be used to cover their health in the event of need. I would therefore advocate for the American citizens to endorse the act for personal benefits as the tax is used to cater for their medical expenses. On the Medicaid expansion program, it was not a bad idea but congress was not acting within its constitutional boundaries. By threatening the states that it would take away their Medicaid funding if they did not implement the Medicaid expansion program, they were acting beyond their powers since they do not have authority to do so (Miller, 51). According to the constitution, congress may use powers vetted upon it to create state-federal spending relations. However, it is upon the individual state to decide whether to spend or not depending on how favorable the terms are to it. This made chief justice Roberts obtain support from other justices in the conclusion that the Medicaid expansion was violating the constitution the moment it threatened states with loss of funding if they did not comply with the funding (Miller, 52). However, there are conditions under which the program can still be exercised depending on the purpose and the conditions under which the program is expected to solve. This is according to precedence that has been set by the Supreme Court while ruling previous cases. For instance, the constitution grants the congress powers to regulate interstate channels of commerce and any activities that basically affect interstate commerce4. Factors affecting interstate commerce could be deeper implying cases where the matters could involve farming and how they do business with each other (Thomas, 3). This in a way could mean that the congress could have to regulate the commercial activities in states including how they spend and the limits of how they spend and penalize those who go contrary to what is the norm5. The responsibility of regulating health behavior and penalizing those that do contrary to what is expected is vested on the principal secretary in charge of health according to the constitution. However, as stated by chief justice Roberts, there are some cases and clauses that can be interpreted to mean that congress has the power to threaten and actually take away funding from the specific states that do not comply with the Medicaid expansion program. This shows that chief justice Roberts’s rulings are not consistent but on a second thought, he has been cautious to analyze the case ruling in a strategic manner since he takes a moment to define each clause to an extent where someone reading the rulings will understand the basis for the final ruling. This also makes the plaintiff and defendant easy to comprehend the reason for the final ruling band makes them understand that the chief justice Roberts was considerate in listening to both parties. The judgment and the entire ruling makes chief justice Robert a better judge since his ruling is governed by the constitution if not by the precedents that have been set there before by the supreme court meaning they can be used to make future ruling of similar cases. As for justice Ginsburg, his ideas were not bad but showed that he did not have much knowledge of the constitution since they are shallow as compared to those of chief justice Roberts who has much knowledge and applies it in a manner that all parties to the case understand the reason for the specific ruling. This makes chief justice Robert a better judge as compared to justice Ginsburg since he is more knowledgeable. On the other hand, justice Ginsburg has more consistent rulings from the inception of the case since he applies his draconian strategy of not listening to other people’s ideas and views but instead remains staunch to one clause where he insists on the shallow clauses in various acts while stating his argument6. I therefore find the chief justice as a more democratic judge while making his rulings since he makes the parties understand the reason for his ruling and explains the reason why he made the specific ruling using the constitution. He uses the constitution which is according to Alexander Hamilton a bill of rights since it cares about the welfare of all citizens (Thomas, 19). For justice Ginsburg, he is dictatorial in making his rulings since he does not give room for any more thinking in the way he puts his ideas across which is not democratic. The Supreme Court makes rulings which are applied in the future to handle similar cases. The precedents set by Supreme Court can be utilized to rule cases in lower courts as it provides a standard ruling in reference to the federal constitution. The federal constitution is used as a baseline in the making of state county laws which are used in the lower courts. The Supreme Court is allowed to intervene in lower court cases that involve reference of the federal constitution. It is correct to say that the Supreme Court makes standard rulings that can be used in lower courts. The case between Sibelius and the national federation of independent business was fairly ruled since it was aimed at protecting the best interests of the people. This is due to the methods used by chief justice Roberts in determining ultimate ruling of the case. Chief justice Roberts explained each and every clause that he used in making his decision and interpreted their application to the case. Work Cited Miller, Edward A. The Affordable Care Act: Advancing Long-Term Care Policy in the United States. , 2013. Print. Thomas, Justice. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET ALv. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. Published: June, 28, 2012. 2012. Print. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf Paul W. Heiring, Maureen M. Maly and Aaron D. Van Oort. Supreme Court Decides National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. New York. Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Published: 28-June-2012. 2012. Print. http://www.faegrebd.com/18624   Read More