A federal judge from Florida expressed sympathy for a plantiff's claim that a mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance is unconstitutional. He said the plantiffs had "most definitely stated a plausible claim" in calling Obama's new health-care law's mandate unconstitutional. The case is expected to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida case is one of about twenty cases challenging the overhaul. The insurance mandate is the main target. A question that is raised, however, is the question of would the whole law get struck down if the federal court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional? The Plantiffs argue the entire law should be invalid, while the administration that many other pieces of the legislation could stand without the individual mandate.
This article is both an example of federalism between the central government and states, and an example of mandates issued by the national government. If the states were not allowed to object to mandates such as this one, then the national government could do whatever they wanted, only needing their own approval. With Florida and nineteen other states opposing the mandate, it creates a more balanced debate as to what is best for the country as a whole. The national government felt it was necessary to issue a mandate on health insurance. Obviously some states have a problem with this, so they sue the national government for acting unconstitutionally.
Not all Americans should carry health insurance. If the people do not want to pay for their own health insurance, they should not have to. The option of having health insurance should be a choice. If a young, strong, and healthy adult feels comfortable with not being insured, then so be it. If a more cautious or sick person feels the need for health insurance, then there will always be the option of getting it. The states should win their case.
Judge Allows Challenge to Health-Coverage Mandate
No comments:
Post a Comment