Supreme Court Case: Jacobsen V. Massachusetts
Most importantly, the 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was a Supreme Court case whereby the Court upheld the ultimate states’ authority to impose compulsory vaccination laws. It articulated that an individual’s freedom should at times be subjected to the states’ police power and subordinated to the collective public welfare. The Court decision in the case elicited numerous questions regarding the state government’s power to safeguard the public's health, as well as the protection of personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. The Court also articulated that the states had the authority to protect its citizens from dangers of diseases for their own good, which necessitated the enforcement of the compulsory vacation laws (NCBI, 2005).
On
the other hand, the 2010 Affordable Care Act that is also referred to as the Obamacare. The Act compulsorily required all the American citizens to possess health insurance and failure to comply would lead to an income tax surcharge. It stated that March 31, 2014, was the deadline for all the citizens to have acquired health insurance or face the charge (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017). During the enactment of the Obamacare, many critics argued that the Act infringed on the citizens’ fundamental rights to make independent decisions with being coerced. Nonetheless, the state and federal governments argued that they had the responsibility of ensuring that all the citizens are protected from diseases and can afford health care services (Obamacare Facts, 2017).
In particular, the 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts case and the 2010 Affordable Care Act are similar in the manner that they enforced health care laws on the people, which critics argue was against individual autonomy and individual rights. From an ethical analysis point, the enforcement of these laws was unethical, but the state and federal governments have a fundamental duty to protect its citizens, which led to government intervention. For instance, the enactment of the Obamacare made health insurance available to over 50 million citizens, which was 95% of the country’s legal population (Obamacare Facts, 2017). Hence, these citizens never had health insurance before the enactment of the Act, which means that they could now access health care services effectively.
On
the other hand, the 2010 Affordable Care Act that is also referred to as the Obamacare. The Act compulsorily required all the American citizens to possess health insurance and failure to comply would lead to an income tax surcharge. It stated that March 31, 2014, was the deadline for all the citizens to have acquired health insurance or face the charge (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017). During the enactment of the Obamacare, many critics argued that the Act infringed on the citizens’ fundamental rights to make independent decisions with being coerced. Nonetheless, the state and federal governments argued that they had the responsibility of ensuring that all the citizens are protected from diseases and can afford health care services (Obamacare Facts, 2017).
In particular, the 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts case and the 2010 Affordable Care Act are similar in the manner that they enforced health care laws on the people, which critics argue was against individual autonomy and individual rights. From an ethical analysis point, the enforcement of these laws was unethical, but the state and federal governments have a fundamental duty to protect its citizens, which led to government intervention. For instance, the enactment of the Obamacare made health insurance available to over 50 million citizens, which was 95% of the country’s legal population (Obamacare Facts, 2017). Hence, these citizens never had health insurance before the enactment of the Act, which means that they could now access health care services effectively.