A
Brief Argument Against Obamacare
In
the last few years America has seen an expansion of federal powers due to the
emersion of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. The debate
continues to rage on, but there are many issues with merit that must be addressed
regarding the law’s constitutionality. This essay will attempt to shed light on
these constitutional issues while providing a brief history of Obamacare,
discussing federal powers, individual rights, the importance of state
governance and the US Constitution.
Proponents
of Obamacare tout its accomplishments. As Paul John Scott wrote in his article
titled Obamacare: A Hater's Guide, “The
vast majority of Americans are finally insured against disaster: The percentage
of people with no coverage fell by a quarter, from 18 percent to 13 percent,
partly because you now must have insurance or pay a penalty” (Scott, 2014).
This 5% reduction in people without health insurance coverage is considered a
positive outcome of Obamacare; however, there is another side of this debate. Many
Americans cannot afford the cost of their new healthcare plans. When discussing
how many patients have been affected by Obamacare’s steep premiums and even
steeper deductibles Dr. Flippo Masciarelli, chief physician at the Denton,
Texas Community Care Center said, “There are quite a few, and I saw another one
today, where their deductibles are so elevated that they can't afford them"
(Angle, 2014). On ObamacareFacts.com, one citizen reported: “My insurance went
up $400 per month and my deductible went from $2500 per year to $12,000. I now
have a $6000 medical bill to pay. This plan is a disaster and is financially
crushing my family” (Obamacare Facts, 2014).
The
entire purpose of insurance is to protect the insured from financial
catastrophe. Due to insurance premiums doubling and tripling what customers
were originally paying, coupled with the massive deductible increases,
Obamacare itself has become a financial catastrophe. This leads us to the
debate over individual rights. Americans in lower income brackets qualify for
subsidies, which will help cover the high cost of their healthcare plan, but
where does this money come from? Answer: Americans who do not qualify for
subsidies! Obamacare has essentially mandated every single American to buy a
product and those who do not buy the product are penalized financially. This
penalty has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as a tax and we
will get to the issues that arise from this ruling, but first, let us discuss
the constitutionality of the federal government forcing someone to buy a
product. There is nowhere in the Constitution that expressly gives Congress or
the President the authority to force American citizens to buy health insurance
or any other product for that matter. So where does Congress claim to get the authority
for their actions? The general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the US
Constitution, which gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare
of the United States. However, during the debates over this clause James
Madison made several arguments that:
“the
power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it
thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends
specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by
Thomas Jefferson.” (Heritage.org, 2014)
As there is nowhere else in the Constitution that gives
Congress the power to mandate every American citizen to buy a product or else
be penalized, James Madison, who is known as the father of the Constitution,
would likely disagree with using the general welfare clause in such a manner. It
is also important to note that a program such as Obamcare, which is essentially
an experiment in healthcare reform, would be better off left to the States. This
is because “America always is more likely to have a few wise state governments
than a wise federal government” (Will, 2007). When the federal government
begins conducting experiments in governance on a national level, we are more
inclined to fail on a national level. Think about how scientists conduct
experiments in a laboratory. Do they use just one lab rat? Answer: Of course
not! They use many lab rats to ensure success of the experiment. If they get
positive results with one test subject, they try to copy the conditions that
lead to the success. If the federal government allowed the states to govern
themselves as they saw fit, the states that were failing would look to the
states that are succeeding and emulate them. Containing experiments at the
state level instead of the national level would also ensure that negative
effects from governmental failures would not be felt nationwide.
However,
the entire premise of Obamacare is arguably immoral. The concept of taking
money from one segment of society, through increased health insurance premiums,
with a product that is congressionally mandated for one to buy and then giving
that money to another segment of society to use for their healthcare insurance
creates an ethical dilemma. By all accounts, this could and rightfully should
be considered state sanctioned theft. The citizens who are paying for lower
income subsidies have absolutely no option to opt out. They either pay more for
their insurance or they pay a penalty. In either case their money goes to
someone else’s health insurance. When someone takes something from a person
without their permission that is called stealing. When the threat of force is
used in conjunction then that it is called robbery. There can be no better way
to describe Obamacare’s funding mechanisms.
Let us now turn our focus to the history of Obamacare’s
passage. “On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act into law” (Obamacare Facts, 2014). It was passed into law
without a single Republican vote. According to the Galen Institute, “more than
42 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 24 that
President Obama has made unilaterally, 16 that Congress has passed and the
president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court” (Galen Institute, 2014). As a
result there are at least two central constitutional concerns regarding
Obamacare based on these changes alone.
Firstly, the President of the United States does not have
the authority to change laws, create laws or nullify laws. His job is to
enforce the laws. President Obama’s actions have violated his oath of office to
uphold the Constitution. His actions are an affront to the separation of powers
enumerated in the Constitution in order to obtain checks and balances. An
all-powerful President was of paramount concern during the Constitutional
Convention and these checks and balances were established as a method to
prevent one person from amassing too much power.
Secondly, as was mentioned before, the United States
Supreme Court violated the Constitution when they made their ruling on
Obamacare. When they ruled that the federal government has the power to lay
taxes, they decided to change the wording of the law, from penalty to tax. This
is completely unconstitutional. The Judicial Branch has no power or authority
granted in the Constitution to change laws. If the law, as it was written, was
unconstitutional, the Supreme Court was constitutionally required to rule against
the law and in doing so, Obamacare would have been sent back to Congress.
Instead, they opted to unconstitutionally change the law in violation of their
oaths of office and creating even more controversy.
Additionally, another constitutional conundrum has been
the source of debate. This issue stems from where a law pertaining to taxes
must originate. The Constitution mandates that all bills pertaining to taxes
must originate in the House of Representatives. This is because they were
originally the house of Congress most answerable to the people prior to the
ratification of the seventeenth amendment, which gave citizens the ability to
vote for their senators. As originally adopted the Constitution gave the state
legislatures the responsibility to elect their state’s senators. The problem
with Obamacare is that it originated in the Senate. According to George F. Will
in an article on The Washington Post,
“the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not
originate in the House” (Will, 2014). This is yet another clear violation of
the Constitution and puts even more doubt over Obamacare’s legitimacy.
In summary, Obamacare originated in the Senate, but was
constitutionally required to originate in the House of Representatives. It has
been changed unconstitutionally by both the President and the Supreme Court. It
perverts the intention of the general welfare clause and it is arguably outside
the scope and authority given to Congress by the US Constitution. The
Constitution does not expressly give Congress the power to force American
citizens to purchase a product. The passage of this unjust law has essentially created
state sanctioned strong arm robbery in the form of higher insurance premiums
and penalties/taxes. There is no doubt that Obamacare has violated the
Constitution on numerous occasions; however, it has also created real ethical
questions about what the US government can force American citizens to do. It
ultimately comes down to the federal government’s implied powers vs. individual
rights and this author hopes that the rights of individuals will prevail.
References:
John Scott, P. (2014).
Obamacare: A Hater's Guide. Men's Health, 29(10), 113-118. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost database.
Angle, J. (2014,
November 4). Some ObamaCare patients with high deductibles turning to community
care centers. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/04/some-obamacare-patients-with-high-deductibles-turning-to-community-care-centers/
Obamacare Facts. (2014).
ObamaCare Stories: Real Life Stories on ObamaCare. Retrieved from http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-stories/
Heritage.org (2014). The
Heritage Guide to The Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/34/spending-clause
Galen Institute. 42
Changes to ObamaCare...So Far. (2014, November 6). Retrieved from http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/
Will, G. (May 2, 2014).
George F. Will: The next Affordable Care Act challenge. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-next-affordable-care-act-challenge/2014/05/02/c0150da8-d159-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html
Will, G. F. (2007, Dec
09). Getting past 'no child'. The Washington Post Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/410179847?accountid=32521
No comments:
Post a Comment