The Famous Health Care Reform by President Barack Obama - Research Paper Example

? An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health Care And Health Insurance NCGS 58:49A North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) got a fresh group of Republicans that voted out Democrats majority who had ruled the state since reconstruction in last fall elections. Republicans campaigned with a promise to repeal president Obama’s health care law enacted on 23rd of March, 2010 that is expected to overhaul the health care system in the United States. These Republicans came to Raleigh to effect changes and began their action on the very first day of the session on January 26, 2011, that very day, the Bill titled Health Care Freedom, was introduced that was meant to overturn in North Carolina the “Obamacare” the famous health care reform by the president Barack Obama. Outline I. Introduction: The Bill titled Health Care Freedom was introduced in North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) that was meant to overturn in North Carolina the “Obamacare” the famous health care reform by the president Barack Obama. II.Background: Republicans campaigned with a promise to repeal president Obama’s health care law. North Carolina Health Care Protection Act"§ 58-49A is meant to keep the promise of the Legislature to repeal it. A. Health Care Reform: The health care reform law seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people will cost 938 billion $ over 10 years. B. North Carolina Health Care Protection Act"§ 58-49A”: This enactment is meant to prohibit any law or rule from requiring a person to provide for health care services or medical treatments for that person. C. Federal and States Acrimonies and Divisions: According to New York Times (2011), more than 20 challenges to some aspect of the vast health care reform act have been filed in the United State, largely by Republican governors and attorneys general mostly focused on the controversial mandate, a requirement that all Americans buy health coverage or pay a fine (or tax). III. Conclusion: The right of a state to challenge the constitutionality of a Congressional action cannot be denied simply because Congress made legislation. IV. Annotated Reference: Each citation is followed by a brief descriptive paragraph. Introduction North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) got a fresh group of Republicans that voted out Democrats majority who had ruled the state since reconstruction in last fall elections. Republicans campaigned with a promise to repeal president Obama’s health care law enacted on 23rd of March, 2010 that is expected to overhaul the health care system in the United States. These Republicans came to Raleigh to effect changes and began their action on the very first day of the session on January 26, 2011, that very day, the Bill titled Health Care Freedom, was introduced that was meant to overturn in North Carolina the “Obamacare” the famous health care reform by the president Barack Obama. By February 24, both Houses had passed it, and the ratified bill was sent to Governor Beverly Perdue. Legislature kept their promise to repeal that was mandated by the people of North Carolina. However, Governor Perdue has very recently vetoed the act: An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health Care and Health Insurance ‘NCGS 58:49A’. Background President Obama signed legislation on March 23, 2010, to overhaul the nation's health care system that guarantee access to medical insurance for tens of millions of Americans. It was the biggest single legislative achievement of his first two years in office, albeit the most controversial. Not a single Republican voted for the final version, and Republicans across the country campaigned on a promise to repeal the bill. After they took control of the House and increased their ranks in the Senate in the November, 2010 elections, action on health care was the first priority. On Jan. 19, 2011, the House voted 245 to 189 in favor of repeal, in what both sides agreed, though a symbolic act. Later on, Senate Democrats defeated Republicans bid to repeal the health care reform act, by mounting party-line defense. The vote was 47 to 51, Republicans falling 13 votes short of the 60 needed to get through their agenda. Republicans denounced the overhaul as impeding job creation and giving the government too big a role in the health care system. Democrats highlighted the law’s benefits, especially for the uninsured, and noted that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had projected that the law would reduce future deficits (NYT.com 2011). Health Care Reform The health care reform law after decades of failed attempts by a host of Democratic presidents since Roosevelt and Truman came into effect on March 23, 2010, seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people will cost 938 billion $ over 10 years by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower and middle-income Americans buy private coverage. Democrats highlighted the law’s benefits, especially for the uninsured, and noted that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had projected that the law would reduce future deficits to the tune of 138 billion $ over a decade. Republicans denounced the overhaul as impeding job creation and giving the government too big a role in the health care system (NYT.com 2011). According to the federal government Health reform website (2011), "A major goal of the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance reform legislation President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010 is to put American consumers back in charge of their health coverage and care. Insurance companies often leave patients without coverage when they need it the most, causing them to put off needed care, compromising their health and driving up the cost of care when they get it. Too often, insurance companies put insurance company bureaucrats between you and your doctor. The Affordable Care Act cracks down on the some of the most egregious practices of the insurance industry while providing the stability and the flexibility that families and businesses need to make the choices that work best for them" (Health care.gov 2011). According to Brokaw (2010), “Every bill or law has its own pros and cons. While the Health Care Reform may be beneficial for some, for others it may not have such a positive effect. With differing views about HCR effects, we must aim for the best decision for the majority of Americans. There’s no consensus on what will result from the federal health care overhaul. Insurers and conservatives say premiums will increase. Progressives and advocates for the underinsured say it will help millions who couldn’t access coverage before North Carolina Health Care Protection Act"§ 58-49A” The General Assembly of North Carolina on 24 February, 2011, passed, and the ratified the bill named as above was sent to Governor Beverly Perdue. This enactment is meant to prohibit any law or rule from requiring a person to provide for health care services or medical treatments for that person. The Act also prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to participate, contract with, or enrol in a public or private insurance plan or health care system. According to NCGA website 2011, the act reads as follow: “Section 1: Chapter 58 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read: "Article 49A."North Carolina Health Care Protection Act" § 58-49A 1. Constraints on health care freedom prohibited. (a) A law or rule shall not do any of the following: (1) Compel a person to (i) provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contract with, or enrol in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan. (2) Interfere with a person's right to pay directly for lawful health care services or medical treatment to preserve or enhance that person's life or health. (3) Impose a penalty, tax, fee, or fine on a person for (i) providing for, or failing to provide for, health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enrol in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan. As used in this subsection, health care services or medical treatments do not include drug testing, drug screening, or communicable disease controls. This subsection does not apply to persons in custody of the Department of Correction or a local confinement facility or who have not completed all requirements imposed as the result of a sentence in a criminal conviction, including, but not limited to, any type of probation, parole, or post-release supervision. (b) This section shall not be construed to expand, limit, or otherwise modify any of the following: (1) The common-law doctrine of necessaries that a spouse is liable for the necessary expenses incurred by the other spouse, including expenses incurred by medical necessity, or any other duty a person owes to a spouse or dependent with respect to the provision of health care services or medical treatment. (2) Any law regarding which health care services or medical treatments are lawful within this State or who is authorized to provide health care services or medical treatments within this State. (3) Any right or duty of a health care agent with respect to the principal pursuant to a health care power of attorney executed in accordance with Article 3 of Chapter 32A of the General Statutes. (4) Any law regarding the right or duty of a parent or guardian in the determination or provision of health care services or medical treatment for a minor. (5) Any law regarding the screening of new-borns for metabolic or other hereditary and congenital disorders, examination and testing of a child for lead poisoning under G.S. 130A-131.9, and health assessments for children entering Kindergarten in the public schools as required in G.S. 130A-440. (6) Any law regarding health care services or medical treatments ordered under the Workers' Compensation Act. (7) Any law regarding health care services or medical treatment regarding involuntary commitments for mental illness or substance abuse. (8) Any law relating to the taking of DNA or any other biological evidence in accordance with Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes.(9) Any law requiring the provision of health insurance for employees as a condition of receiving State economic incentives. (10) Any law regarding the examination and testing of persons to determine possible exposure to nuclear, biological, or chemical agents caused by a terrorist incident as provided in Article 22 of Chapter 130A of the North Carolina General Statutes. (c) An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section has standing to bring a private right of action for the violation. In addition, the Attorney General shall have the duty and Standing to bring or defend a State or federal action or proceeding on behalf of the residents of this State to enforce the provisions of this section" (NCGA.state 2011). Federal and States Acrimonies and Divisions According to New York Times (2011), more than 20 challenges to some aspect of the vast health care reform act have been filed in the United State, largely by Republican governors and attorneys general mostly focused on the controversial mandate, a requirement that all Americans buy health coverage or pay a fine (or tax). The insurance mandate is core to mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Meanwhile, federal government is trying to roll out early provisions. In September 2010, a number of important provisions took effect. Insurers were banned from dropping sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications and required to offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies. The very affirmative obligation on individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 or face the payment of a penalty is the real cause of acrimonies, states bid for legislations, and court challenges for constitutional validity. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution (the Commerce Clause) gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and this includes the channels of interstate commerce (US v. Lopez 1995). The Supreme Court has recognized limits to Congress’s Commerce Clause authority by noting “even our modern-era of precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirms that this power is subject to outer limits.” (U.S. v. Morrison 2000).As noted by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has “never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” (Cong. Budget Office 2011). The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reached the same conclusion indicating that “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the Commerce Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.” Congressional Research Services (2009). As legitimate arguments exist on both sides of the issue, this division cannot speak to whether the individual mandate is or is not constitutional. Nevertheless, strong arguments support the position of the General Assembly, as stated in House Bill 2, that Congress acted outside its Commerce Clause powers when creating the individual mandate. By February 2011, three judges had upheld the mandate and two had found it unconstitutional. Conclusion Bill or law has its own pros and cons. While the Health Care Reform may be beneficial for many Americans and has socialistic approach, for others it may not have such a positive effect. With differing views about health care reform, the federal government must aim for the best decision for the majority of Americans. There’s no consensus on what will result from the federal health care overhaul, as Republicans and Democrats are poles apart in their views. Insurers and conservatives are not happy with the expected change. Progressives and advocates of socialistic values are extremely supportive of coverage for the underinsured that will help millions who couldn’t access coverage before. The right of a state to challenge the constitutionality of a Congressional action can not be denied simply because Congress made legislation. If this were true, no state could ever challenge an act of Congress. Regarding the Health Care Reform Act, several court cases are currently underway to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. Two federal district courts, one in Virginia and one in Florida, have found the individual mandate in the ACA to be an improper exercise of the Commerce Clause. However, according to White house (2011) Health Reform makes health care more affordable, holds insurer more accountable ,expands coverage to all Americans and make the system more sustainable. ‘ Reference Brokaw, S. (2010, October 12). Pros and Cons of Health Care Reform. The Washington Informer. Retrieved 2/16/11 from http://www.washingtoninformer.com Bill or law has its own pros and cons. While the Health Care Reform may be beneficial for some, for others it may not have such a positive effect. With differing views about HCR effects, we must aim for the best decision for the majority of Americans. There’s no consensus on what will result from the federal health care overhaul. Insurers and conservatives say premiums will increase. Congress Budget Office (2011). Selected Publication Related to Health Care Reform Legislation 2009-2010.Retrieved on 30 March 2011 from http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12033&zzz=41488 In March 2010, the Congress passed and the President signed into law legislation that makes major changes to the U.S. health care and health insurance systems. That legislation came in two parts: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Congress Research Service (2009).Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis. Retrieve on 30 March 2010 from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40725_20090724.pdf As part of Congress’s health care reform effort, there has been interest in requiring individuals to have some type of health insurance. Although the federal government provides health coverage for many individuals through federal programs such as Medicare, it has never required individuals to purchase health insurance. While it seems possible that Congress could enact an individual coverage requirement that would pass constitutional muster, there are various constitutional considerations relevant to the enactment of such a Health Care Reform (2011); The Affordable Care Act’s New Patient’s Bill of Rights. Retrieved 2/16/11 from http://www.healthcare.gov A major goal of the Affordable Care Act – the health insurance reform legislation, President Obama signed into law on March 23 – is to put American consumers back in charge of their health coverage and care. General Assembly of North CarolinSession (2011). An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health care and Health Insurance.58-49A-1. Constraints on health care freedom prohibited accordance with Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes. www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H2v3.pdf The act prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to provide for healthcare services or medical treatments for that person. The Act also prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to participate, contract with, or enrol in a public or private insurance plan or health care system. Health Care Reform (2011).White House. Retrieved on 30 March, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Health Reform makes health care more affordable, holds insurer more accountable, expands coverage to all Americans and the system more sustainable. Health Care Reform (2011).New York Times, Retrieved on 30 March, 2011 from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health President Obama signed legislation on March 23, 2010, to overhaul the nation's health care system that guarantee access to medical insurance for tens of millions of Americans. It was the biggest single legislative achievement of his first two years in office, albeit the most controversial proposal. US Constitution. Article 1.Section 8, Retrieved on 30 March from http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html US Constitution .Article 1.Section 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States. United States v. Lopez (1995).514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 Retrieved on 30 March 2011 from. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-states-lopez.html The three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power are: a) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; b) Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities; and c) Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al. (2000).CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-5. Argued January 11, 2000–Decided May 15.Retrieved on 30 March 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html The Commerce Clause does not provide Congress with authority to enact §13981’s federal civil remedy. A congressional enactment will be invalidated only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. Read More