The endorsement by the United States Supreme Court of a key provision in President Barack Obama’s health reform law requiring most individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, is a progressive decision. As all provisions in the law go into effect, it is bound to strengthen the call for a non-profit universal health care system in America. That the majority verdict delivered by the Chief Justice and four liberal judges chose to lean to the left in a cliffhanger case is a watershed moment in U.S. constitutional history. To those who have campaigned for tax-based health coverage for all, the new law may still fall short, but what it does provide is health protection to millions of uninsured Americans through more affordable insurance choices. It also prevents insurers from refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions. In spite of such progressive features, the law is not universal in its coverage, exempting prisoners, undocumented aliens, and some poor families. Four years ago, the agenda for the U.S. presidential election virtually centred around health reform, and the Obama presidency has weathered the fierce backlash from Tea Party and Republican conservatives. The legal denouement has now vindicated the President as he pursues a re-election bid, and sustained much of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
For sheer scale, President Obama’s health reform evokes comparisons with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Despite Thursday’s ruling, though, it faces challenges. These arise from the court’s rejection of a portion of the law that requires States to use more federal funds to protect the health of less affluent citizens through the Medicaid programme. Importantly, the principle on which the health reform law has survived is the power of the government to levy a tax (in this case, on those who are eligible but do not take out health insurance). The Affordable Care Act also stipulates the percentage of funds that insurance companies must spend on actual care, thus capping administrative costs. These aspects are of particular interest to India, which has a fast-growing profit-seeking health and insurance industry, and is simultaneously trying to formulate a tax-funded universal health coverage plan over the next five years. A Planning Commission panel here has submitted its report calling for regulatory structures to standardise health care, with a contracted-in role for the private sector. Unlike the U.S., and in spite of the impoverishing levels of out-of-pocket payments for healthcare incurred by citizens, health reform has not become a central issue in Indian politics. As Americans celebrate their constitutional victory, it is a moment for India to think of its own universal health system.
Keywords: Barack Obama, Medicaid, U.S. Presidential election, universal health care, U.S. Supreme Court
Obamacare will be unconstitutional in India because the constitution of India in any of its articles has not authorized the union govt to force the people of India to buy something they don't want to buy and by doing that they do not pose a physical threat to others (ex auto insurance). Of course the last thing that socialists and communists care about is our constitutional rights and our freedom.The private industry is the best thing for the health care just like in telecom sector the private industry will increase the quality and decrease the cost of healthcare.We all the difference between telecom sector before the year 2000(before privatization) and after year 2000(after privatization) i hope the govt don't want to replicate its success in telecom sector that existed before 2000 in health care as well.
Using insurance to pay for doctor visits for common ailments is the real reason for skyrocketing healthcare costs. If my insurance pays my bills, is there a real reason for me to decline any treatment or medical test based on cost? I do not think that mandating a health insurance purchase is a progressive decision at all.
The Affordable Care Act is flawed because it doesn’t include “conscience protection,” in which hospitals and employers can object to providing health services and health care coverage that is against their moral or religious beliefs. On this basis the Catholic Church in the States have drawn up their battle line against Obama. True that the Care act excludes the undocumented immigrants and the poor families.Moreover it does infringes on the religious freedom because it is one of the most objectionable outcomes of the health care law that the Supreme Court largely upheld on Thursday: the requirement that religious institutions that aren’t strictly for worship, including hospitals and schools, provide birth control with no co-pay as part of insurance plans. This is indeed an assault on religious freedom for which Obama will have tougher time ahaead.The Court does'nt diminish the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all nor eliminate the need to correct flaw.Obama has not won
Whenever a subject as sensitive as healthcare is proposed, people start judging policies on the basis of their intentions and not their effects. When someone advocates something like 'free healthcare for all', anyone who opposes it, even with plausible reasons, is automatically demonised. For instance, one might oppose Obama's policies on the grounds that they are too costly, but that person will easily be labelled as 'anti-poor', even if the point is valid. I don't intend to get into the whole healthcare debate but want to merely emphasize the difficulty in arguing against policies that seem 'progressive', but which may actually have adverse effects in the long-run. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to impress upon the masses that "policies must not be judged by their intentions but by their effects" (Milton Friedman).
Obama's victory is made sweeter by the pivotal support of the "conservative" Chief Justice, Roberts. This has undermined right-wing criticism of the legislation as Bolshevik or socialist.
Obama's original proposals were watered down by the Congress. He was forced to abandon the (the Canada-type)'Public Option'. A more progressive Congress may, in the future, improve on the present legislation. The profit-oriented Private Industry might, over the years, leave healthcare (to seek greener pastures), facilitating such consumer-oriented changes.
Please Email the Editor