Classmate's article
I respectfully disagree with this student's argument because the
reasoning seemingly only comes from the fact that she, as well as most,
want people to have health insurance. The Affordable Care Act is
controversial in many ways, but the controversy does not focus on some
people arguing people shouldn't have insurance (aside from the argument
that not all people want to participate in the health insurance market,
and therefore should not be forced to). I think this blog post is
simplifying the debate and missing the critical issues. The Affordable
Care Act is potentially problematic due to constitutional and financial
issues. The biggest problem seems to be the individual mandate and tax
penalty issues, which this blog post did not address. The individual
mandate and tax penalty imposed if one does not purchase the required
insurance stem from complicated constitutional law issues, which seem to
be the critical issues that the Supreme Court focused on during the
case arguments; therefore, I believe that the debate really hinges on
those issues, and how the Supreme Court decides the case. Unfortunately,
most people do not understand this part of the debate too well because
of the legal complexity, which is why many people are outraged because
they just want healthcare. However, the way in which the legislation was
written and the "penalty" it would impose seem to be the real issue. I
recognize that many people are not digging into these issues because of
their complexity, and due to the complexity, they are not readily
explained and found in the media. I wish there were more educational
articles about the Act that explain how the mandate and penalty are
constitutionally problematic because then people wouldn't see those
opposing the Act as people who don't want others to have health
insurance, because that is simply not the crutch of the issue.
The student does mention the financial part of the debate, and how
the Act raises concerns because it would increase the national debt.
However, this part of the argument is also much more complicated, and
requires a great deal of financial analysis. Also, the student didn't
raise the main argument typically used here (and argued before the
Supreme Court), that people who do not currently have health insurance
are causing more stress on the economy and national debt because of the
high bills that must be paid for by the government when they do seek
health care. However, that argument also ties into complex arguments
about whether someone can claim they "do not participate" in the health
care market, and therefore, would not cause such stress on the economy,
which is countered with arguments that everyone at some time in their
life would use the health care system, so remaining uninsured ultimately
will cause economic harm. I think this argument is also complicated
because it revolves around more constitutional issues involving the
Commerce Clause, which once again is not easily explained or addressed
in most media articles on this debate.
Ultimately, the Affordable Care Act represents a complicated piece of
legislation that is not easily understood by most Americans.
Consequently, it has turned more into a polarized issue where people
seem to take a simplified Republican or Democratic side, without really
understanding the legal issues and why the law may be stricken, in whole
or part, by the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment