Introduction
Obama Care is actually an unofficial name that has been branded to the Patient Protection and Affordable Act that back in March 23, 2010 was passed into law. This healthcare reform starting from its initiation to the current moment intends to offer Americans a number of new benefits, protections, and rights with regard to their healthcare and to set up Health Insurance Marketplace in which Americans can purchase health insurance that has been subsidized and regulated by the Federal government. Looking at this policy, there are many provisions that offer patient protections when it comes to dealing with insurance companies which is then followed by mandates to which everyone who can afford must obtain a health insurance by 2014. New taxes have been created, funding for health awareness and education and spending cuts have all been included under Obama Care. Looking back at this health reform policy, over 100 million Americans have benefited from the new rights and protections.
Looking at the statistics in relation to Obama Care targets, the Wall Street Journal on 30th October, 2013 reported that up to 40,000 to 50,000 Americans had signed up for the new private health coverage under Obama Care under the federal exchange whereas 49,000 for the 12 of the 14 state-based exchanges. This is an indication therefore that, the Whitehouse fell short of their target by around 80%. Therefore, for a federal policy to be successful, there is need that the federal, states, local government and individuals understand their key roles and the benefits they stand to benefit. If this had been the case with Obama Care, their Federal government’s target would have been reached. However, that is not the case as noted in the discussion below.
Discussion
Going by the latest events concerning Obama Care, a federal judge, Paul Friedman in late November, 2013 allowed a case to go forward that sought to challenge on the constitutionality of imposition of tax penalties on those who failed to buy health insurance as it has been guided by Obama Care. Plaintiffs were denied a preliminary injunction that sought stop subsidies through Obama Care insurance. One point to note is that the case was presented by a small business owner in West Virginia. This ruling came at a time when the Obama administration is trying to grapple with widespread complaints regarding the sign-up website for the health care law which has continually raised questions over whether there should be another key component that will be postponed on the law.
The benefits that would come upon the success of this policy are very many. However this is yet to be confirmed as President Obama himself was bold enough to admit that the main website for the enrollment is not working as it should. There is more concern on this policy currently bearing in mind that all uninsured members have been given up to the mid-February of next year by which they should sign up for coverage so as to meet the requirements by the law which recommends that they should be insured by March failure to which they will face penalties. The federal government intends to improve the health indicators through the Obama Care. This has not been working as the policy has yet to receive adequate backing from states, individuals and local governments.
There have been multiple situations where 27 of the 50 states have been challenging the constitutionality of Obama Care in court. Such actions indicate that these states will be slow to adopt the policy, slow at implementing it and also slow at advocating it to individuals and any other lower forms of government. Back in 2011, states such as Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Florida and Virginia were among those states that marched to a federal court to challenge on the constitutionality of Obama Care. Florida’s case argued that, the law’s mandate that individuals must buy health insurance does in a great way exceed the legitimate power that is granted to federal government in regulation of interstate commerce as it is in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The case also cited that, the Obama Care policy imposes on the state governments to expand their Medicaid programs which according to the states were violating the 10th Amendment that sought to limit federal government to the powers delegated to it by the Constitution of the land.
The examples above stand firm in an indication that, federal policy face a steep mountain for them to be adopted, accepted and to be implemented by the states. State governments have been noted to be very swift at scrutinizing Obama Care by analyzing aspects of its Constitutionality, the power that is allocated to the federal government and also trying to be considerate of the positive effects that the policy would have on its population.
Conclusion
The pros of the Obama Care policy tend to outdo the cons. This is from a broader view where the federal government analyses the benefits of improving affordability and acceptability of healthcare nationally. Some of those advantages are tens of the millions of uninsured Americans would get access to affordable quality health insurance while Medicaid would be expanded up to 15.9 million men, women and children below 138% of the poverty level. However, analyzing this from a state level, the needs of the state are diverse and they scrutinize the powers of the federal government providing a barrier. Therefore, this federal policy has to convince states and local governments on its constitutionality over applicability before it can be implemented fully.
References
Blackman, J. (2012). Unprecedented: the constitutional challenge to Obama Care. Florida: Longhorn.
