Thursday, December 30, 2010

Individual Health Mandate Ignites Controversy

9-12 March in DC-67
One of the most crucial and divisive components of health care reform is the individual mandate. The most exorbitant part of the healthcare reform law that was just passed this year by Congress is the subsidy that is created in order to aid America’s working-class citizens to purchase individual health insurance.

However, then new entitlement is not the most controversial part of the law. Such a distinction goes to the provision that actually creates the need for the subsidies, which is the individual mandate. Beginning in 2014, all adults in America will be mandated to purchase health policies, according to the White House.

Opposition to the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

To those who oppose this move, health reform's individual mandate exemplifies the controlling overreach and invasiveness that have branded the past couple of years of associated Democratic power in the government. To those who support it, it is a critical portion of the effort by Congress to ensure that everyone in the country has health insurance available to them. In fact, estimates say that health reform will provide access to coverage for 32 million Americans in the next three to four years.

Attorney Generals Fight Back

More than twenty state attorney generals have brought forth two different lawsuits opposing the individual mandate. In addition, over a dozen individuals, advocacy groups and trade associations across the nation have filed challenges of their own.

Even though the plaintiffs in these cases make a multiplicity of legitimate points, their primary argument is that Congress does not have the authority to force the American people to purchase any type of product. If the government did possess such power, there would be no end to the control that it holds over the people. Congress would be able to order Americans to buy memberships at a gym or eat a specific amount of fruits and vegetables every day. The government could force people to vehicles from Chrysler or GM until the government has recovered its recent investment.

A number of federal judges have expressed their doubts about the mandate, claiming that it is an exceptional effort by Congress to normalize economic sedateness. Legal battles surrounding the issue of the individual mandate are not expected to be resolved without at least one of the lawsuits making it all the way to the Supreme Court.


photo credit: Andrew Aliferis


mahakal said...

Clearly, a partisan right wing Supreme Court will find that this overreaches Constitutional authority and strike the individual mandate, which could only be made legal by offering a public option. In the latter case the mandate becomes a tax which may be exempted for those with qualifying private health coverage.