Landmark Decision Pros And Cons

A Landmark Decision by Julien Hawthorne gives insight on the heated debate related to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). A basic summary of the law is that it requires all Americans to have health care or otherwise pay a tax. Also the PPACA states that federal governments would only supply money for Medicaid (helps provide health care to those in need) to states that promote its expansion. The law has received widespread criticism and support. On one hand supporters believe that the law will make health care more accessible but on the other hand critics believe that the law is unconstitutional and will end up making health care even more expensive. The Judicial Branch, which consists of
the Supreme Court is the decision maker in whether laws proposed and enforced by the other two branches are constitutional and influences how laws are interpreted. The Court ruled that the first part of the PPACA that required Americans to have health care or pay a tax was considered constitutional as Congress can collect and enforce taxes. However the Court also ruled that the federal government cannot penalize states that do not agree to Medicaid expansion. This court ruling explains the influence of the Judicial Branch. The Constitution forms the foundation of our government. The Judicial Branch makes decisions on how laws are carried out and often refers to the Constitution in order to preserve the democratic values of the US. In my opinion making health care more accessible definitely has benefits for the general well-being of Americans. However I think that encouraging Americans to have health care rather than taxing them will persuade many Americans that the law is for their overall health, not just for tax dollars.