On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a five-and-a-half hour hearing for 26 states to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act championed by President Barack Obama — a decision that at the very least will stoke contentions between political parties and could lead to a historical ruling.
The law is being challenged from many different angles. Political Science assistant professor Marc Meredith explained that one of the main arguments is that national commerce laws prohibit the federal government from regulating interstate trade. Opponents of the law believe that the federal government was overstepping its bounds in mandating that citizens purchase health insurance plans. Meredith also said opponents are arguing about how the Untied States can afford to sustain the legislation.
College Republicans President and College and Wharton Senior Charles Gray argued that the law didn’t take skyrocketing healthcare costs into account and will increase the national deficit at a time when the country has an unsustainable level of debt.
“We’re on the path to fiscal suicide,” when instead we should be on the path to “fiscal sanity,” said Gray, a columnist for The Daily Pennsylvanian.
The goal of the law, which will be challenged in March, is to expand healthcare access and Medicaid. Meredith also explained that Obama’s health overhaul benefits Penn students because it extends their parents’ healthcare coverage up to age 26.
Penn Democrats President and College junior Isabel Friedman agreed and explained in an email that this legislation would have tremendous benefits.
“[It would] improve insurance options for all people, including those who are currently rejected from private healthcare providers because of preexisting conditions,” she said. She added that the law particularly benefits women because it requires health insurance plans to cover contraception, sexual health screenings and mammograms.
“Everyone who pays taxes is affected in some regard,” Meredith said.
The court has the option to either uphold the law, strike all or part of it down or refuse to give a definitive answer. Gray said the court may not rule in 2012 because people who don’t purchase healthcare coverage are subject to the equivalent of a tax. If this point is argued, then according to the anti-injunction act, the court can’t rule until the first person pays a fee in 2016.
But if the court does seek a definitive resolution, they will have to focus on the law’s constitutional legality rather than whether they agree with the policy. If they agree with the law, Meredith said, then they would have to find its constitutional legality.
Regardless of the decision, this case is poised to cause political schisms. While Republicans are hoping that they have earned points with their constituents by bringing the case to court, according to Meredith, it is expected Democrats will empathize with Obama either way.
