According to Medicaid provisions, American citizens are required to maintain a minimum insurance coverage. On the other hand, the mandate healthcare policy requires of individuals to purchase insurance covers on their own.
The first option seems to have many constitutional challenges. It does not uphold constitutionalism since liberty and democracy are not guaranteed. Therefore, it is not preferable.
Apart from individuals who have been exempted from this Act, every citizen will have to regularly maintain a specified level of health insurance coverage which is perceived to be minimum (Copeland and Carey 87).
The fact that one is supposed to face a tax penalty for failing to raise this amount makes it inhuman and unconstitutional since an individual has a free will to either agree or disagree with one of the health covers.
Provisions on healthcare should not be enforced to any citizen. The argument that it is being done with a motive of regulating the economy is not convincing at all.
Although those supporting the Patient and Affordable Care Act argue that it will enhance regulation of the financial system in the health sector, it is profound to note that it will require everyone to participate regardless of whether they are in need of medical care or not.
Thus, funds will be secured from healthy people to cater for those with already pre-existing health conditions. This provision of allowing everyone to acquire health insurance cover might compel the insurance givers to cover all the medical conditions even in the early stages of ailment leading to additional medical expenses.
In addition, for those who join the medical scheme last, there may be a requirement for them to be attended to in the same way as those who joined earlier.
Regarding the constitutionality of the congress in passing the Act, it is imperative to mention that federal courts have strongly questioned and doubted the power of the Congress to do so.
Although there have been divergent views regarding the Congress that require people to purchase health insurance, I still feel that this may not be proper.
If such an act is allowed to operate, it will have a negative impact on other segments of the economy apart from health sector.
Those who support Medicaid are of the opinion that citizens and non citizens who do not buy health insurances are still participating in this market unknowingly and hence there is no need to alienate them (Copeland and Carey 95).
However, it is the right of every individual to access healthcare regardless of the affordability of the scheme. This will be equal to placing a burden on the people bearing in mind that this right is already guaranteed.
It is also important to note that healthcare cannot be regulated in the same manner as other sectors. Healthcare is essential and therefore should be managed in the best way possible.
If the Congress is allowed to pass such a law, it will be tantamount to dictate how Americans have to spend their money. This will mean that the same Congress can apply a similar rule to other commodities in the pretext of controlling the market.
Whereas the constitution regulates how the government is supposed to deal with citizens, the act defines the relationship between private insurers and citizens.
The proponents of The Affordable Care Act feel that by adopting this approach, all the patients will be recognized under the law. This would help to protect all the children up to the age of 26 years since they will be under parental insurance cover.
In addition, they feel that this act would require insurers to cover the pre-existing conditions that would enable millions of Americans to access insurance cover while enabling them to acquire affordable health.
They support their argument by asserting that with proper interpretation of the law, the Congress has the authority to interfere with an individual’s mandate.
Their case is even more convincing since many constitutional experts have asserted that an individual’s mandate can be under the Congress authority as well.
Those who support private purchase of insurance tend to differ sharply as the constitution does not guarantee the individual mandate under the commerce clause. They argue that every American should be subjected to a penalty for failing to raise the required amount.
As such, the Congress has not been given such powers by the Constitution under the commerce clause. As a result, the Congress can only be seen to be overstepping the powers given to it.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act tend to appeal to sympathy disregarding the severe economic outcome that can emanate from enactment of such a law.
In addition, this act does not seem to uphold the provisions of the constitution. This can be seen as interference to the integrity of other institutions. A good example is the case whereby the responsibility of citizen is directly merged with that of the private insurance providers.
Due to these options, I would have strongly supported the constitution which is above any other law.
This would have ensured that individuals’ fundamental rights are totally preserved. I would therefore have voted for the mandate provision followed by Medicaid.
Works Cited
Copeland, Curtis and Maeve Carey. Upcoming Rules Pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2011. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. Print.