Constitutionality of the PPACA

Healthcare in U.S. / Constitutionality of PPACA Meaning of Quote Constitutionality of the individual mandate PPACA Meaning of Quote The meaning of the quote "deviance is in the eye of the beholder" is that whatever is deviant to one may not be to another. The differences in cultures, environments and traditions in the world mean that whatever one society may view as deviant may be the convention or the norm in another. Similarly, at the individual level, what one may view as deviant, another individual may not (Samara, 2012).

Many organizations, political parties, societies and individuals all struggle to be the ultimate judge of what behavior can or cannot be classified as deviant in correlation with social, religious, political, and or moral positions of these entities. Instances of this social struggle include situations where organizations such the anti-abortion movement, the creationist movement or animal rights groups fight for or against certain causes. Members of these movements are trying to make their positions politically and legally recognized through their struggles (Samara, 2012).

Constitutionality of the individual mandate PPACA In the year 2010, members of congress passed the PPACA act which stands for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This legislation was passed to comprehensively reform the United States Health Care system. Other supporters of the act claim that it was passed to end a crisis in the healthcare industry.

The act attempts to enhance availability of affordable healthcare, to provide consumers with protections against discriminatory practices by health insurance companies in terms of underwriting and to reduce uncompensated healthcare using a comprehensive set of economic regulations and tax measures. In March of the same year, the president signed the Act into law, marking the most significant shift in healthcare policy since the establishment of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965 (Kamiat, 2012). This act, however, emerged as a highly debated issue in the public sphere primarily because of its minimum coverage provision.

This provision that is also known as individual mandate has been the subject of many suits. Quite a number of people claimed that the congress might have, in passing PPACA, overstepped its constitutional boundaries. As this matter moved through the judicial systems, many courts have disagreed on the matter of whether the individual mandate provision of the act is an exercise of legislative power within constitutional boundaries (Kamiat, 2012). Another provision of the act that has been disputed is the issue of severability.

The issue is whether other legitimate components of legislation can be separately enforced even if there are invalid provisions within the same legislation, or whether a finding that a provision of legislation is unconstitutional affects a statute in its entirety. The question of severability is however only second in importance after the initial determination of constitutionality regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Kamiat, 2012).

The United States Supreme Court in its decision on 14th November 2011 granted review of the Eleventh Circuit's court decision on both matters: the constitutionality of the provision on minimum coverage and its severability. In March of 2012, the Supreme Court heard over five hours of arguments on the two matters and later issued its ruling on June 2012. In its decision, the court found the provision to be.