National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius Essay

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law March 23, 2010 by President Barack Obama; however, the constitutionality of the law remained in question. In a controversial 5-to-4 ruling, The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law on June 28, 2012. The ACA is thought by some as the United States health care rescue, and as its downfall by others.

"Let there be no doubt. Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year," President Barack Obama proudly stated (New 1). As soon as President Obama was elected into the White House, he made it a mission to get a Health Care Bill passed. On March 21, 2010, Congress passed the first draft of the monumental Health Care Bill. This bill was passed so quickly that citizens of the United States never got a chance to fully understand the pros and cons of the bill. Congress was allowed to read the bill within a 72 hour time frame. When the bill was brought to the Congress's floor, representatives and senators had a full day to debate and vote in favor or against. Due to positive promotion of the Health Care Bill,

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

On June 28, 2012, The Supreme Court ruled the Federal Government does not have the constitutional right to sanction an individual to buy health insurance, but declared that the states do have the right to place a tax on citizens that do not carry insurance. This ruling is in response to President Obama’s Patient Protection and Healthcare Act of 2010. Passed on March 23, 2010, President Obama’s Reform Act mandates Texas, as well as the nation, to provide Medicaid funding to all individuals that are uninsured by 2014. As well as expanding Medicaid, it will provide exchanges, which are pools of insurance companies a previously uninsured person can pick

In 2012 the Supreme Court resolved a case where Florida sued the Federal Government over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Florida believed the Federal Government had overstepped its allocated powers granted to it by the constitution. Specifically article 1, section 8, known as the Spending Clause, which gave the government the power to grant money to the states and tell the states what to do with said money (Jefferson, 1787, p. 25). Florida’s issue arose in the fact that the Affordable Care Act provided no additional funding and the government has no right to tell the states how to spend their own wealth.

President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010. It was passed along with the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act and the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility act of 2010. Opponents see this healthcare mandate as an unprecedented and unconstitutional violation of personal liberty. The mandate effectively restructures American healthcare by flipping the balance of authority away from the private sector and onto the Federal Government. One

The Medicaid revisions and expansion under the ACA, exhibited the federal government overstepping their power as they tried to penalize any state governments in opposition of the expansion, consequently, taking away states’ power. The Medicaid Expansion Mandate would’ve compelled states to join due to the loss of federal funding towards Medicaid if they did not adhere to (Phi Le, par.40). The Supreme Court hearing allowed states to have a choice whether or not to participate in the expansion without a total loss of their Medicaid funding. In return, states who didn't participate wouldn’t receive additional funding that coupled with this mandate that required inclusion, extending coverage of those who were at “Income below or ar 133% federal

health-care law, the entire national program could have been in jeopardy if the court had struck

What are the most important elements of the Affordable Care Act in relation to community and public health? What is the role of the nurse in implementing this law?

King v. Burwell (2015) is a Supreme Court case involving two parties, the petitioner David King and the respondent Sylvia Mathews Burwell the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In a brief background of the case according to Oyez, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and lower health care costs. ACA requires each state to establish an “exchange” in which people can purchase health care; and if a state chooses not to do so, the federal government establishes one through the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Another condition made by the ACA requires people to have to obtain the “minimum essential coverage” or pay a tax penalty unless it

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law, allowing all Americans access to affordable health care. Despite the urgent need to provide health care to all Americans some Governors and elected Congressmen continue to debate over the necessity to expand Medicaid and the ACA. The Supreme Court on June 28, 2012 ruled in support of the ACA by upholding the individual mandate which require Americans to have health care insurance. Americans without health care insurance, because of this new health care policy will be able to either purchase insurance through the exchange market or through the expansion of Medicaid. Some states are against the expansion of

In King V. Burwell, the legality of the subsidies was challenged. The entire case was based on four words in the text of the Obamacare law: “Established by the state” (Four Words Could Bring the Law Down). The argument is that the Federal exchanges set up to bypass the states rejections are not specifically included in the actual law passed. Republicans suggest that since the

These opponents have been known to seek the help of the courts in their opposition to Obamacare. In the case of the National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, the Supreme court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the individual mandate

You bring up an excellent point of social justice in relation to this case. As given by Pierce and Randels (2010), justice is provided by distributing benefits or burdens across society in a fair manner. It is shocking to me, that Blue Cross/Blue Shield felt they were being just in their determination of denying this coverage. Insurance companies are supposed to aim towards providing help for individuals. Without insurance, obtaining health care would be an absurd out of pocket expense for many in society. The areas of coverage, or lack of, can significantly progress the potential for health disparities on people. As Patel and Rushefsky (2014) examined, one of the greatest problems within health care is the access to health insurance, as well as the cost of merely having insurance (p. 203-234). Those who are able to have insurance and afford it, expect to be covered for health issues. The very purpose of having insurance was undermined by Blue

Early in American history, there was a push for a universal health care plan but the politicians of the day would never allow the federal government that type of power and control. At his time in American history healthcare was thought to be a personal issue or at least an issue that would be left to the states or even smaller government agencies. After World War II many politicians tried and failed to pass a national healthcare plan until Obama Care was passed and forced on the people of the United States. The reality is that Obama care is not even a health insurance plan it just regulates health insurance and forces every citizen to purchase health insurance even if they don’t want to. This paper will show how the United States and health care went from an individual personal rights issue and worked its way from nothing to several different health care plans and finally arriving at Obama Care. Although Obama Care will always be up for debate, since America is always looking for a new and improved health care plan, this will show why the Affordable Care Act is not the best plan for America.