Independent Business Vs Sebelius Case Summary

The case came to be known as the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case. There were several issues raise by the anti-Obamacare side. First of all, they argued that the law mandated all citizens to pay towards the insurance scheme, even though not all citizens were supportive of the move. They also made a spirited appeal to prove the increased tax burden that the new law would impose on the highest income earners in the country. The argument was that they would be required to pay more taxes contrary to their personal wishes. The argument of increased insurance costs to employers and insurance companies also featured prominently in the court proceedings. They also cited the expansion of Medicaid in individual states, without prior consent being sought from the administrative authorities in different states. They wanted individual states to be at liberty to opt out of the expansion of Medicaid if they deemed it fit. Both sides beamed with confidence that they would win the case,
The Obama administration was acting in the best interests of the country. Provision of quality health care services is one of the most important responsibilities of the government. However, it remains one of the most expensive services to provide because every other day, people fall sick and must be treated for them to regain their health and continue working towards nation-building. An ailing workforce becomes an economic burden. Again, it is difficult to predict when someone will fall sick. Therefore, the health insurance law acts as a contingency plan when citizens fall ill unexpectedly. Even though they may be ill-positioned to cater for their medical expenses at the time when they fall ill, the insurance cover comes in handy at their hour of need. In this regard, in view the ‘Obamacare’ law as the best thing that happened in the country’s healthcare