National federation V sebelius





National Federation V Sebelius

This decision came in because there was an enactment of patient protection, which increased the numbers of American citizens covered by health insurance, thus decreased the cost of health. This provision is beneficial since most Americans have minimum vital medical coverage. Americans who do not receive health insurance from the government or an employer are supposed to purchase insurance from a private company (Brus 2). Alternatively, they are supposed to pay the money to the government as internal revenue. It is a just decision because both the poor and wealthy are able to have access to good medical facilities without paying large amounts of money.

In addition, the decision is impartial because programs like Medicaid programs provide funds to the state, which helps the needy. The needy in this category include pregnant women, disabled, the elderly and children. The decision is just because the program expands the numbers of individuals who get coverage from the act. Hence, most people are able to access medical services. Conversely, this act covers adults with children who have low income but do not cover adults without children (Hall 1). This is because adults with children have extra expenses and need medical coverage to keep them well. The decision is just because the states that comply with the act receive funds for the requirement. However, states that do not comply with these act risk loosing the funds. This is because some states might use the money for other issues instead of concentrating on the intended issues.

It was a just decision because the court did not allow any person to put an injunction before paying their taxes. Every person subjected to the tax must first pay then claim for a refund in court. The affordable payment act was not tax but rather a penalty. Therefore, there was no basis of an injunction (Johnson 3). It is a just decision because the individual mandate does control existing commercial activity but compels to participate actively in commerce activities because this might affect interstate commerce. It is therefore the responsibility of citizens to ensure that they pay their health insurance to avoid unnecessary penalties.

Interpreting the commerce clause to allow congress to control jobless people would provide another area for congress authority. This is because congress already has enough power to control people’s businesses. Therefore, the decision of affordable act will permit congress to control people’s actions (Perkins 3). The framers of the law knew the difference between acting and doing nothing. Therefore, they gave congress the mandate to regulate issues but not to compel these issues. Ignoring this fact will assume that the federal government has limited powers over its citizens.

It is reasonable to say that the individual mandate commands individuals to buy insurance. However, the explained reasons do not give congress this kind of power. It is therefore essential to turn to the alternative government decision that suggests the congress has the mandate to collect taxes. Conversely, the government will be imposing a tax to those who do not buy the product (Stone 2). This is a just decision because others might ignore purchasing health insurance yet it is for their individual benefit.

The suggestion that payment responsibility of the affordable act should be a penalty and not a tax is justified. This is because there are people who might take this chance to file an injunction to the act yet it benefits many citizens. There is no control of whether payment of tax is within the powers of the congress. This decision is just because it describes an analysis of why the responsibility payment can be constitutionally a tax. This is because the payment is low and people have no choice but to buy the health insurance. There are no willful violations during payment since there are penalties of unlawful acts and payment is only through IRS. This does not imply that the intention for payment is never for purchasing health insurance. Therefore, it is a just decision to assume that failure in payment of health insurance is unlawful. The affordable act does not attach any legal consequences on failure to pay health insurance. In addition, the state should regard it as a tax to those who do not pay insurance.

The decision is just because there are clauses that give the secretary of health power to penalize states that do not comply with new regulation of expanding medical programs. These states might even risk loosing government funds for ignoring these regulations. Due to loss of 10% in the budget economy, the state does not have any other option but to venture in Medicaid expansion. The government claims that it is an expansion of existing medical program amendable by Congress.

The actions of the Congress are rational in this issue because future actions (the intake of medical care) will certainly occur The reasoning presented in the case is analogous to the Court’s judgment in Taich. The judgment of Taich’s case was meant to control marijuana grown by people for their own consumption. Homegrown Marijuana extremely affects the interstate marijuana market. Marijuana got drawn into the market by high demand in the interstate market. The decision therefore recognizes the authority of the congress which is under the commerce clause to carry out of an individual today ceased growing excess wheat; suspect in Raich ordered to stop the cultivation of marijuana. It arises from a future prophesy of transaction- the final sale of that marijuana or wheat in the market of the interstate. The only doubt is the time of occurrence (SUPREME REPORTER).

The decision made by the judges to uphold the minimum coverage position on the basis of all participants or involved stakeholders in the health care field would hence carry no implication. Congress is just under the commerce clause which gives a mandate to of buying other products and services. Holding the idea that those without insurance are inactive in the health-care field, The Chief Justice parallels it to the market of cars. A person is inactive in the car market. The Chief Justice uses the analogy because he may buy a car someday. The parallelism is inapt. The compelling need for medical care and the assurance that care for emergency is availed in terms of need are conditions not available in other markets. It is only existent in the markets of broccoli and cars as well. Although an individual can purchase a broccoli or a car, there is no assurance that he will do so in future. And if she eventually needs the broccoli or is with a craving for a car, he will pay at the counter before receiving the service or good. The individual will not get the item for free at the expense of other consumers paying more than required. Thomas More Law v. Obama case in 2011 on regulating how people pay for health care (after treatment) provides another support (Barnett, Shapiro and Levy). When a person gets treated, it is difficult to know when they will need the service again, and when illnesses or emergencies occur the affordability is uncertain.

The minimum coverage position compels people to purchase goods and services outside their wishes. This is a suite of products. Medical services that are not in need today are of great significance in future. This is a justification by the court as a way of ensuring public safety. Almost every individual benefits from services of health care at some point in the course of his life on earth. Health care insurance is a way of compensating for this service. In compelling individuals to obtain insurance on their health, the Congress is acting morally (Hopkins). The moral aspect of this comes across as the Congress does not mandate the buying of an unwanted product. The Congress however gives limits on the amount of pay that individuals should meet as a result of a service they consume. People who the mandate gets subjected to them must therefore pay for medical health care in advance through insurance. This implies that they pay for the service prior to receiving it and the form of payment is through a company and not from individual’s pocket. Controlling payment of goods or driving interstate commerce is within the jurisdiction of the Congress. Therefore, the decision by the Court is just. Some scholars say that Federal Government has the powers to prescribe quality and even price of a commodity (Banks and Blakeman).

The chief justice takes the minimum insurance provision as an illegitimate effort to make young individuals reduce insurance premiums paid by old folks who are less hale and hearty. The act is morally right because an entry of young individuals would bring down the cost of insurance which would benefit the entire populace. He also terms the complaint spurious. The current health system gives healthy persons without insurance a benefit that they incur no liability: they have an option of gaining access to emergency care, when need arises, even if they cannot afford it. Only those insured have the disadvantage of this assurance as they incur some debt. The call for insurance coverage implies that individuals without insurance will cease enjoying the current privileges they have over those insured. This is morally upright as it brings a sense of equality in health care provision (Fallon).

Moreover, the young and healthy individuals will age and eventually subscribe to the society’s old and infirm category. Currently, the provision of the Court’s decision requires the young to pay more than their fare share. As they age, the pay reduces to adulthood where they pay lesser than their fair share. This is a moral approach to the issue as old age come with inefficiency and many responsibilities. Paying for the service heavily on a tender age will make life easier during adulthood. In the event of one’s life, one may pay more than the value of services he receives. This is not a problem as that is how insurance companies operate. Insured individuals get protection against disaster loss, even though a group of those insured still need that coverage.

The intentions of the Congress are not met if Medicaid and Medicare reductions are not needed to offset the liability of Medicaid expansion. The congress would lose its foundation and justification of the case. This is in addition to preserving them to get rid of an important quid pro quo of the legislative compromise and come up with a law the congress did not formulate. Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez maintains that there is no secret in cutting Medicare (Oyez, Inc.). It is most unlikely the Congress would have done so without making the ACA deficit-neutral.


This decision is just because there was an enactment of patient protection that increased the numbers of American citizens covered by health insurance thus decreasing the cost of health. In addition, the decision is just because there are programs like Medicaid programs that provide funds to the state. These funds significantly help the needy. Interpreting the commerce clause to allow congress to control unemployed people would provide another area for congress authority. It is reasonable to say that the individual mandate commends individuals to buy insurance. The suggestion that payment responsibility of the affordable act should be a penalty and not a tax is justified.

Works Cited

Brus, Brian. “Law Students to Study Health Care Ruling.”Journal RecordJun 29 2012.ProQuest.Web. 27 May 2013 .

Hopkins, Bruce. “Tax-exempt organizations and constitutional law : nonprofit law as shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court.” New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012.

Hall, Mark A. “The Affordable Care Act Survives, for Now.” The Hastings Center report 42.5 (2012): 12-4. ProQuest.Web. 27 May 2013.

Johnson, Steve R. “It’s Not a Tax (Statutorily), but it is a Tax (Constitutionally).” NewsQuarterly.ABA Section of Taxation 32.1 (2012): 13-4. ProQuest.Web. 27 May 2013.

Barnett, Randy, et al. “Thomas More Law Center v. Obama.” Legal briefs (2010).

SUPREME REPORTER. “National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius .” Supreme Court Review (2012).

Perkins, Jane. “Implications Of The Supreme Court’s ACA Medicaid Decision.” Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.(2013): 77-79. CINAHL Plus with Full Text.Web. 27 May 2013.

Oyez, Inc. “LEGAL SERVICES CORP. v. VELAZQUEZ.” Same-sex Marriage Deep Dive (2011).

Stone, Matthew. “AG Defends Lawsuit to Get LePage’s Medicaid Cuts Approved.” Bangor Daily NewsOct 19 2012.ProQuest.Web. 27 May 2013 .

Banks, Christopher and John Blakeman. “The U.S. Supreme Court and new federalism : from the Rehnquist to the Roberts court.” Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.

White, Brandon. “Judicial Politics, Chief Justice Roberts’s Legacy, and the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius Decision.” Justice System Journal 33.3 (2012): 367-72. ProQuest.Web. 27 May 2013. Fallon, Jr, Richard . “The dynamic constitution : an introduction to American constitutional law and practice.” New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.