June 28, 2012 will go down in the history of the United States of America as a benchmark for the Obama administration. Today will be known for the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval on Obamacare. On March 26th, 27th, and 28th, an oral argument was heard before the Supreme Court of The United States of America. The court allotted six hours for this argument, the most time given to an argument in front of the nations highest court in recent memory.
Obamacare, or the legal name, The Affordable Care Act as well as The Patient Protection Act were intended to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and to make health insurance more affordable. The notion behind this plan was that everyone should have “minimum essential” health insurance coverage, and those currently without insurance should now be required to obtain coverage. This act allows for anyone whose health insurance is not covered by the government (i.e. Military members, government employees, those receiving Medicare, and those receiving Medicaid) to purchase a coverage plan from a private insurance company. However, if one refuses to purchase a health care plan, then they would be subject to a penalty of a certain percent of their annual income.
The second part of the act was intended to put financial pressure on the individual states to advance their Medicaid policies to those that would be mandated by the federal government. If any state would refuse the new Medicaid policy, this new act would allow the federal government to rescind existing Medicaid finances as a disciplinary action toward the state. Basically the federal government, through this act, wanted to provide the states with Medicaid and in return ask that the states comply with its conditions.
After three months of deliberation, the court finally came back today and reported a ruling to partially uphold the act and to partially dismantle it. Or in the terms of the court, to partially affirm and partially reverse the law. Put simply, the court decided to uphold the mandate (which they slightly revised as to not call it a mandate by calling the penalty for not purchasing insurance a tax) and to disallow the expansion of Medicaid in the states, allowing the states to not refuse Medicaid extensive funding, thus allowing the states to refuse the conditions that would accompany the federal government’s Medicaid funding. In short, the court refused the part of the law that would force states to accept federal funding for Medicaid, saying, “Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
The opinion was really divided into three components. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Ginsburg wrote the concurring opinion representing her own opinion as well as the opinions of Justices, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan. Then there was the dissenting opinion from Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. This split the Courts opinion into a very rare four–to-four-to-one vote with Roberts representing the tipping point.
The George W Bush appointee, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberals on today’s decision, and although they agreed in general, the four liberals had a signicantly different outlook. Roberts wrote his opinion concluding that this act was not permissible by way of the Commerce Clause (a Clause in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution allowing Congress to regulate commerce in between states), but rather by way of Congresses right to tax the public. Roberts’s opinion allowed for the individual mandate to no longer be called a mandate, but still to require individuals to either obtain health insurance or be subject to a tax. Roberts held that Article 1 of the Constitution gave Congress the right to uphold such a tax, a holding that some say will provide precedent for an expansion in the federal governments ability to tax.
In sum, the four dissenting conservative justices thought that the majority opinion would open a door for congress to impose taxes on anything it would feel the need to tax, for whatever reason it would want to -- that, just because Congress found it necessary to have health insurance, they have no right to impose a tax on anyone who might not see health insurance necessary. The conservatives basically dissented saying that it was not in their opinion that the government should be allowed to dictate the usage of an individuals’ finances.
The liberal justices saw health insurance as a commodity that could be subject to Congressional regulation based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. They found if it was necessary for all people to be safeguarded by health insurance, then it was within the government’s realm of power to mandate an individuals’ purchasing of such a commodity.
Then the deciding factor, Chief Justice John Roberts, thought differently then the rest, and ultimately sided with the liberals, but did so in an unorthodox manner. In his majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the penalty was actually just a tax and that Congress had full Constitutional right to impose a tax to promote the general welfare. He also wrote that he did not believe Congress had the power to dictate purchasing of goods or services under the Commerce Clause and that its powers should be limited strictly to regulating commerce. In the end it was how Roberts wrote it. Congress cannot tell you that you have to buy anything at all, and no law can be made mandating any use of private finance. However, congress has full power to enact taxes, as well as the power to exempt from taxes. The law that will affect us all is basically this: if you choose to purchase your own health insurance, you will not be subject to this new tax. If you choose not to buy insurance, you will be subject to this new tax. This restricted Congress from mandating that anyone participate in any specific act of commerce, while still allowing for Congress to acquire the necessary funding to provide health care to all, by way of a legal tax, not a penalty.
This information comes from the Supreme Court decision for the case of:
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Locate the full opinion of the court at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment