Yesterday, an appeals court in the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that the health care plan passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in early 2010 is, in fact constitutional.
Much controversy has surrounded the health care issue since the law’s passage; Republican candidates vow to do everything they can to get it repealed and conservative judges are gearing up against it, claiming that the law is an unconstitutional infringement upon personal liberties.
According to Reuters, Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in his majority opinion that the law was indeed an encroachment on individual liberty, but that “it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race . . . or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.”
To a certain degree, the government should refrain from interfering in people’s personal life decisions, but health care is a system that simply functions better with government regulation. Not all aspects of life as a citizen of the United States can practically remain free of government regulation, especially when it concerns the health and safety of the population. Those against Obamacare argue that the law will cause delays or a lesser quality of care in treatment for certain conditions, but this slight hiccup is better than a large sum of the people not receiving any treatment at all.
Additionally, one of the main reasons that opponents of the new health care law claim it is unconstitutional is that it infringes upon the religion of those who claim that health care is against their religion. However, this portion of the population is so infinitesimal when looking at the bigger picture that it would be illogical to cater solely to their interests without considering the general welfare of the people first.
The new health care law also favors college students heavily because it allows them to be under their parents’ health care plan until they are 25-years-old and financially able to seek out a health insurance plan of their own.
This ruling is certainly a step in the right direction for health care reform, but its staying power remains to be seen, especially if a Republican candidate is elected president in 2012. The battle for a working system is far from over, but the wheels have certainly been set in motion in light of this court decision.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
i’m not a republican, not even close. however, it seems obvious that the opposition to the health care bill is not limited to religious arguments. it’s a matter of our government forcing us to buy a good. if that sounds fascist, it is because it is. for the greater national good, as defined by president obama and the democratic party, we must all now buy ridiculously overpriced health care. i believe that health care is a right, that all persons should have uninhibited access to affordable health services. there are better ways to do it than mandating we all purchase health care, though.