Obamacare and the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate

If you have all been keeping up with the news, it is impossible to not see the headlines dealing with the healthcare battle in the Supreme Court of the United States.  The main argument in this case is whether or not the federal government can mandate all Americans to purchase healthcare insurance if they do not already have it.  The individual mandate, which originated as a Republican idea, would require that all Americans purchase minimum health care coverage starting in 2014, as stated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.       

Donald Verrilli Jr., speaking at the Supreme Court in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare; argued that this law is a valid response to a crisis in the market of health care.  The individual mandate regulates how people are going to pay for healthcare services, which is and always will be a universal need.  It is also important to keep in mind that as a result of this health law, those that are uninsured, will now be insured. 

Prior to this legislation, an uninsured individual can walk into the emergency room and be treated for what their emergency without paying for that medical care.  This is something that hospitals are obligated to do.  By them not paying, the cost of that will eventually fall to everyone else to cover that loss.  Many Americans do not want to cover the cost for someone else’s emergency injuries and/or illnesses.      

Those that are not in favor of Obamacare, particularly the health law’s individual mandate; state that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate individuals to purchase healthcare.  Paul D. Clement, speaking at the Supreme Court against Obamacare, argued that it is one thing to create a bank, but another to force Americans to put all of their money in it.  

Justice Scalia compared the individual mandate to the universal need to eat.  Although everyone buys food sooner or later, the federal government cannot make people buy broccoli.  Like the argument for not wanting to cover the emergency room costs for others, many Americans do not want the federal government telling them they have to purchase something for a universal need.  

The opinions of many Americans have spanned to both sides of the political spectrum.  Many voiced their opinions on this by comparing it to car insurance.  Those in favor of the individual mandate say  it is something everyone must have when owning a car.  The flip side to that argument is that the federal government does not mandate anyone to own a car.              

If the Supreme Court of the United States strikes down the individual mandate, does this open the door for the same kind of suit in Massachusetts?  In 2006, Former Governor Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law into law.  This law mandates that every resident of that state must obtain a minimum level healthcare insurance plan, but the state will provide free health coverage to those earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level.  

There was one case, Fountas v. Dormitzer, brought before the Superior Court in Essex County, which was challenging a fine that was levied on a citizen for not having health insurance.  The judge later dismissed the case and there have been no further challenges to it.  According to studies done by the Boston Globe, this law has performed better than expected, and it was a revolution that worked.  Could there be a similar outcome for the United States, as a whole, if the individual mandate survives judicial review?   Perhaps this raises the difference between federal and state? 

In the United States, justice seems to be very subjective.  Presidents, congressman and senators all state that we are a nation of laws, but very rarely do you hear any of them say we are a nation of justice.  There have been many laws that have been  and/or are still in place that do not seem fair and live up to what justice truly is – fair and equal.  The question still remains as to whether or not the federal government can mandate Americans to purchase health insurance; and, regardless of the decision, this will certainly set a precedent.  Nevertheless, seeing how many people are protesting for and against the health law, this will continue to prove that justice will be subjective in the United States.