FLORIDA VS. USA HHS Essay
Today, the problem of the development of the effective healthcare system is one of the most serious challenges to the contemporary health care system. In actuality, rising health care costs make them unaffordable for a large number of Americans. In such a situation, legislators and policy makers attempt to change the situation for better. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was one of the efforts to make health care services available to a larger number of people because the act expanded the Medicaid program and opened larger opportunities for Americans to be enrolled in the Medicaid program. However, the lawsuits filed against the act led to the court ruling which prevented the act from the expansion of the Medicaid program.
At this point, it is important to dwell upon the key points, which justified the decision being taken by the court. In this regard, it is possible to refer to four key components to Judge Vinson’s opinion, which help to understand the court’s ruling. To put it more precisely, the court denied the use of the application of the act’s norms in regard to the expansion of the Medicaid program. First of all, Judge Vinson stands on the ground that the ruling that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s dramatic expansion of Medicaid is not coercive to the states. What is meant here is the fact that the act could affect the development of the state consistently and they could not afford the financial pressure but the main point is that they should not be legally liable to cover health care costs. In this regard, the judge appealed to the sovereignty of states and insisted on the prevention of the introduction of the act because it could threaten to the sovereignty of states and their constitutional rights and liberties.
Furthermore, Judge Vinson argues that the individual mandate exceeds Congressional powers to regulate interstate commerce. What is meant here is the fact that the act regulates interstate commerce but the Judge Vinson argues that the Congress does not have the power to perform this function. In such a way, the Congress again attempted to limit the sovereignty of state and overuse its powers, which were not granted to the Congress by the US Constitution.
At the same time, Judge Vinson stands on the ground that the individual mandate exceeds Congressional prerogatives to enact laws that are “necessary and proper” for executing its delegated powers. In such a way, the act could not be implemented because a priori it implied the overuse of Congressional power to enact laws that are not delegated to the Congress. Therefore, the Congress should not limit the sovereignty of states and regulate their commerce, imposing financial obligations, which were implied by the act. Finally, Judge Vinson concludes that the individual mandate was essential to the functioning of other critical components of PPACA, and therefore the entire law must be overturned. In such a way, Judge Vinson explained his position and the reason why the court overturned the law.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the court’s ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act overturned the entire law because of its considerable drawbacks and failure to match the US Constitution.
