The constitutionality and social impact of the mandatory health insurance mandate

Economic and Constitutional Issues Surrounding Health Insurance Mandate for All American Citizens

The situation

One of the great commitments of the Obama administration was that of restructuring the health care system so that it generated more social benefits for the population and in such a manner that the population was presented with an increased access to healthcare services. A solution found suitable in the accomplishment of this desiderate was identified in the health insurance mandate, in order words, the legalization of mandatory health insurance. Instead of attaining the pre-established goals, this political measure generates a series of disadvantages for the already socially and economically disadvantaged, who were in fact perceived as the target population in need of assistance. Given this situation, it becomes imperative that the legislators readdress the issue of the mandatory health insurance.

3. Social importance of the health insurance mandate

In a most simplistic formulation, the social importance of the mandatory health care insurance is given by the fact that the acquisition of health care plans is not a viable solution in the context in which a significant part of the American population does not afford to pay the high price of the respective insurance. Today, the United States of America host citizens of various economic and social backgrounds, reveling as such extreme income inequalities. In the context in which the mandatory insurance is implemented, it will only deepen the gap between America's rich and its poor.

4. Pros and cons of changing the direction of the policy

Arguments in favor of changing the direction

The mandatory health insurance will generate social imbalances and will widen the income inequality

The policy does not represent a constitutional measure and is not legally sustainable as no precedent to support it exists. "Anything that has never been done before is literally unprecedented, which means it lacks any precedent. So the question is, will the Supreme Court want to authorize this new extension of congressional power in light of the fact that it violates the first principles it affirmed in Lopez and Morrison?" (Barnett, 2009).

It is also argued that the insurance mandate is not constitutional since the government does not have the right to tell the United States citizens what products to purchase, even when these products are beneficial for them, and even less when the socio-economic impact of purchasing the respective items is questionable (Savage, 2009).

Arguments against changing the direction of the policy

Once again delaying any measures to restructure and resolve the two impending problems in the health care system (raising costs and insufficient coverage) does not constitute a constructive approach to resolving the impending problems

Aside the socio-economic problems it raises, the mandatory health insurance would ensure that all the U.S. citizens benefit at least from the basic health care services and this does not put tremendous strains on the federal budgets.

5. Rationale of the suggestion to change the direction

Despite the benefits the mandatory health insurance would generate for the population, its implementation is abusive and unconstitutional. In its most simplistic form, the government does not have the right to order the citizens what products to purchase, let alone when these items jeopardize their economic stability. At a national level, the measure would deepen the socio-economic inequalities -- which are already a too powerful trademark for the U.S.

6. Importance of health insurance mandate for legislators

The mandatory health insurance has a direct and primary importance for the populations, especially the socio-economically disadvantaged populations which would be negatively impacted by the measure. Yet, the very legislators have sworn to protect the rights of these very individuals. At a first level, the legislators should know their popularity (and adjacently their future chances for reelection) would significantly decrease. At a secondary -- and deeper -- level, the legislators should know that the measure would not be able to solve the problems in the American health care system, but would only generate new ones.

References:

Barnett, R., 2009, Is health insurance mandate constitutional? last accessed on June 18, 2010

Berger, J., 2009, a health insurance mandate that works like auto insurance? Think again, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/14/health-insurance-mandate-works-like-auto-insurance-think / last accessed on June 18, 2010

Bihari, M., 2010, Mandated benefits -- understanding mandated health insurance benefits, http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/mandated_benefits_overview.htm last accessed on June 18, 2010

Cowen, T., 2009, How an insurance mandate could leave many worse off, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/health/policy/25view.html last accessed on June 18, 2010

Goodman, J.C., Matthews Jr., M., 1997, the cost of health insurance mandates,, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba237 last accessed on June 18, 2010

Rivkin, D.B., Casey, L.A., 2009, Illegal health reform, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html last accessed on June 18, 2010

Savage, D.G., 2009, Health insurance mandate may test limits of federal power, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/11/02/some_doubt_constitutionality_of_a_federal_health_insurance_mandate / last accessed on June 18, 2010

2007, the history of health care insurance in the United States, Northern California Neurosurgery Medical Group, http://www.neurosurgical.com/medical_history_and_ethics/history/history_of_health_insurance.htm last accessed on June 18, 2010