The constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate

¶ … legality of the "individual mandate" to purchase health insurance

There have always been heated debates about the amount of interference government should have in our lives. Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota perhaps summed it up best when she commented that "If the federal government can tell you, when you are not doing anything, that you must do something, then the federal government can tell you anything," (Mears 2012). This sentiment was echoed by many, politicians and just plain citizens alike, as the fiercely debated issue of mandatory health insurance continued to command the spotlight.

Is health insurance really just a "product," as many suggest? This may be the case, but when we are purchasing a service that affects us, literally, so close to home, there is much more at stake than there is when purchasing a different service, such as automobile insurance. It is difficult to separate the issues from the emotions in cases like this; the very meaning of what it means to be American seems to have come into question.

Question 2: Statute of Frauds

When agreeing to a transaction with another individual, it is important to be absolutely clear about the terms of the agreement. This helps to avoid confusion, conflict, and hostility down the line. This is why it is strongly recommended to put everything, even the friendliest and simplest of business agreements, into writing. Having a written record of the terms allows both parties to have documentation of the terms that the agreement was entered into with, and this can be referred to in any conflicts that may arise.

However, conflicts do arise, and fraudulent behavior may often be the cause. This is as true now as it was in 1677, when the first Statute of Frauds, "An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries," is said to have been enacted in England (British History Online). Most states have versions of the Statute of Frauds. This serves as a warning to those entering into a contract; it also lets potential defrauders know that they will be held accountable for their wrongdoings.

Question 4: Episode 1: What is the right thing to do?

Michael Sandel presents difficult questions in his initial episode by presenting what-if scenarios that offer unpleasant choices: to kill five people or to kill one? This seems simple enough to decide, and most would decide on a course of action that would take the fewest lives. When additional variables are factored into the equation, the course of action suddenly seems less clear. Sandel describes these two types of thinking as consequentialist moral reasoning and categorical moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning was written about by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century political English philosopher whose ideas were known as utilitarianism. The second school of thought Sandel presents, categorical moral reasoning, is what we read about in Immanuel Kant's writings.

Personal and political risks are inherent in undertaking this type of study, Sandel points out to his students. Reading the theories of these different schools of philosophy causes individuals to see things in a different way, and once they have done so, the experience changes them. The right thing to do, at this early stage of study, would be to take the course of action that takes the fewest lives.