The recent health care reform may be due to tumble like a row of dominoes.
When U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled the health care reform law unconstitutional on Monday, he said the federal government violated the Constitution by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance unless they suffer financial difficulties.
The White House responded by saying the judge’s decision was an example of “judicial overreaching.”
This discourse shows our country is still wrestling with a question it’s dealt with since its birth: the balance between states’ rights and federal power.
We can understand why the judge would deem it unfair for people to be forced to buy health insurance at the risk of an IRS fine.
For Americans, such a measure seems to violate our freedom to decide our course in life and the way in which we spend our money. Vinson ruled this individual mandate section of the law unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause provides for Congressional control over activity, not the lack thereof.
He makes a good point.
Our problem with Vinson is found elsewhere in his 78-page ruling.
He said the section is the key to the law, and all other sections of the legislation “are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.” In the judge’s mind, the government should start back at square one and rethink the entirety of the health care overhaul.
Some people would agree with him, but the repeal of the whole bill would likely prove unpopular with the majority of Americans. We aren’t looking forward to sick people being denied insurance for preexisting conditions again and neither are the seriously ill. Because about 129 million Americans could have a preexisting condition, nearly half of the country’s population would have to once again reevaluate where it stands in the eyes of insurance companies.
To be fair, Vinson noted he made his decision reluctantly. He understood he was about to open a can of worms about a problem that can’t be easily resolved.
On the surface, simply dismantling the law may seem to be the best option.
Many were quick to point out, however, that not requiring health insurance would lead to people opting in only when they need medical care — a practice that supposedly would bankrupt the insurance industry.
The basic principle of health insurance is that the healthy will pay the bills of the ill, but that idea could be turned on its ear without the proposed mandate in place.
Thus, people on both sides of the debate have stated that the law stands as a monolith not designed for handpicking the best ideas and tossing the disagreeable ones in the trash.
That said, we can’t help but wonder if there’s a way to keep the baby while throwing out the bath water.
Maybe next time our politicians can make sure the foundation of sweeping legislation is constitutional before they vote on it.
