On day three of the Health Reform Law hearings, the justices focused on two topics. First, the topic of what happens to the broader law if they strike down on the requirement to buy insurance and secondly how to expand Medicaid. This law is so complicated because everything is tied together the provisions have constitutional difficulties. The final issue of the week was Medicaid. 32 million people would get new coverage from this, supported by federal funding. The general public is concerned with where money will come to fund this increase in the program, most likely coming from taxes, which taxpayers cannot afford. Some think that it will save money in the end for states, around $100 billion over the next six years. Another topic arising was the topic of insurance companies. Should the justices have to worry about how the bill is going to affect the insurance companies? In the end it is the state's decisions to participate in this program, but with all the funding the federal government money its hard for the states to pass it up, even if they feel it is wrong or they are being coerced into the decision.
On Wednesday, the third day of oral arguments were presented in front of the United States Supreme Court, challenging the main mandate of the bill- whether or not the government can force people to buy health care. Day three of this argument centered initially on whether ObamaCare statute can still exist if the individual mandate requiring people to have health care is struck down. Secondly, arguments were heard on whether or not the federal government is going too far in trying to get states to expand Medicaid to cover more people who don't have health insurance. The representatives for the state challenging the health care provision stated that offering federal money to states under certain conditions is coercive. From what I have read, the individual mandate is the center of ObamaCare, and the statute would not be able to stand on its own if the individual mandate is struck down. The supporters of the government and of the statute state that judicial precedent has deemed the law constitutional and it should not be struck down. The Court seemed to be interested in the fact that there may be ways to keep the statute alive even if the individual mandate is struck, and was curious as to why Congress didn’t pass a broad reform package without the mandate. In the second case regarding coercion, the concern was raised that governmental power would be extremely heightened over state power, and the balance between state and federal governments would be forever changed. This is a valid concern, but I believe that this is necessary to be handled on a federal level, and I don’t believe that health care reform could feasibly be implemented if it were in the hands of the states. Overall, day three did not shed any light on which way the Supreme Court will vote, and it will definitely be interesting to see the results later in the Summer.
How does requiring people to have health insurance impede upon our rights so much more than state-required car insurance?
ReplyDeleteIt does not we have a choice in life or death just as we have a choice to walk or drive.
DeleteOn day three of the Health Reform Law hearings, the justices focused on two topics. First, the topic of what happens to the broader law if they strike down on the requirement to buy insurance and secondly how to expand Medicaid. This law is so complicated because everything is tied together the provisions have constitutional difficulties. The final issue of the week was Medicaid. 32 million people would get new coverage from this, supported by federal funding. The general public is concerned with where money will come to fund this increase in the program, most likely coming from taxes, which taxpayers cannot afford. Some think that it will save money in the end for states, around $100 billion over the next six years. Another topic arising was the topic of insurance companies. Should the justices have to worry about how the bill is going to affect the insurance companies? In the end it is the state's decisions to participate in this program, but with all the funding the federal government money its hard for the states to pass it up, even if they feel it is wrong or they are being coerced into the decision.
ReplyDeleteOn Wednesday, the third day of oral arguments were presented in front of the United States Supreme Court, challenging the main mandate of the bill- whether or not the government can force people to buy health care. Day three of this argument centered initially on whether ObamaCare statute can still exist if the individual mandate requiring people to have health care is struck down. Secondly, arguments were heard on whether or not the federal government is going too far in trying to get states to expand Medicaid to cover more people who don't have health insurance. The representatives for the state challenging the health care provision stated that offering federal money to states under certain conditions is coercive.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have read, the individual mandate is the center of ObamaCare, and the statute would not be able to stand on its own if the individual mandate is struck down. The supporters of the government and of the statute state that judicial precedent has deemed the law constitutional and it should not be struck down. The Court seemed to be interested in the fact that there may be ways to keep the statute alive even if the individual mandate is struck, and was curious as to why Congress didn’t pass a broad reform package without the mandate. In the second case regarding coercion, the concern was raised that governmental power would be extremely heightened over state power, and the balance between state and federal governments would be forever changed. This is a valid concern, but I believe that this is necessary to be handled on a federal level, and I don’t believe that health care reform could feasibly be implemented if it were in the hands of the states. Overall, day three did not shed any light on which way the Supreme Court will vote, and it will definitely be interesting to see the results later in the Summer.