Legal case analysis of a critical healthcare regulatory issue

¶ … Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard (2011) raises some of the legal issues attendant upon the new Affordable Care Act in regards to state vs. federal rights. The tenets of federalism, according to Weeks (2011), promote the rights of individual states above the rights of the federal government, which should be limited and narrowed inasmuch as is practically possible. The federal oversight and mandates that are built into this piece of legislation have been objected to by many states and individuals as overly intrusive, and Weeks (2011) provides an analysis of why the Affordable Care Act is objected to as a matter of law and as a matter of principle. Understanding this issue requires an understanding of the nature, sources, and functions of law as they are perceived in the United States in regards to healthcare.

The nature of laws in the United States are perceived by many not to ensure the public good, but to protect the rights of each and every individual (Gonzales 2010). That is, it is more important for many -- especially those that subscribe to a very strict federalist view -- that choice and freedom be as absolute as possible than it is to ensure public and societal well being and stability beyond a bare minimum level (Gonzales 2010; Weeks 211). The nature of law in a federalist society, according to this view, is more about defining the limits to which a government will or is allowed to become involved in certain issues, rather than about defining specific interventions. The law will of course define these specifics as well, but in this view it is not their primary nature or, as shall be shown, their primary function.

The Affordable Care Act demands that all individuals obtain some sort of health insurance, and as such functions not as a limit on government power, but rather as a legalization of government intervention. This is perceived as a perversity of the supposed nature and function of the law in the United States. De Rugy and Miller (2001) outline several much-lauded economic theories regarding health insurance and healthcare regulation that might actually find a great deal of support by proponents of the Affordable Care Act in terms of their practical outcome, but that will not find support with many Americans. Whether or not increasing the government regulation of the healthcare industry is pragmatically good -- which is a matter of never-ending debate in and of itself -- the function of laws is, as seen by many Americans, to protect citizens form other citizens and from government intervention (De Rugy & Miller 2001; Weeks 2011). This law does neither of these things, and so is a bad law regardless of its ultimate effects in this perspective.