Virginia V. Sebelius Essay example -- Health Care, US Government

Health care has been a much needed but problematic institution for the United States over the last several decades. Particularly private companies have been the main cause of high premiums and the denial of coverage for the previously ill. In attempts to remedy these issues, Congress in conjunction with the President of the United States Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The PPACA is a federal state that focused on the reformation of the private health insurance market, provide better coverage for those with existing conditions, and improve the conditions of Medicare. Within this statute there is the section 1501 mandate, the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, which requires every citizen, besides the exempt, to maintain a minimum level of health care by 2012. Those choosing not to participate will be subject to a momentary tax with their annual income tax returns. Since its creation, this particular mandate has caused a great deal of cont roversy. In early 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia passed into law, a statute that forbade any type of mandate that would force citizens to purchase health insurance. They believed such a mandate would cause an immediate and continuing burden of the State and its citizens. Although it was created months before the PPACA statute it is clear the Virginia statute come in direct conflict with the federal mandate. It is the responsibility of the courts to solve this conflict between the two parties, Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius. The Commonwealth of Virginia has lodge a complaint with the about the constitutionality of the PPACA statute. Through the state’s Attorney General, it challenges the enforcement of the statute due on part to section 1501 of th... ...only a choice between participation or retaliation. In New York v. U.S., the courts found that Congress cannot directly force states to legislate is accordance to their scheme. Forcing a state to participation or penalty is coercive in nature. This would counter the federalist structure outlined in the tenth amendment. In closing the constitutionality of this mandate is a minimum sketchy and often steps over the delicate boundaries allotted to Congress. Although there are a multitude of precedents to rule in favor of the defendant, doing so could leave a means in which to bring Congress unrestricted powers. Our goal is not to create a police State where the federalist structure becomes miniscule to the greater good of the poor, sick, and unfortunate. Although, the court supports the intentions of the PPACA statute the means of accomplishing them cannot be backed.