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

Health care has been a much mandatory but problematic institution for the United States over the last several(prenominal) decades. Particularly private companies have been the main cause of high premiums and the demurral of coverage for the previously ill. In attempts to remedy these issues, Congress in colligation with the President of the United States Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable sustainment Act (PPACA). The PPACA is a federal state that focused on the rehabilitation of the private health insurance market, provide better coverage for those with quick conditions, and improve the conditions of Medicare. Within this statute there is the section 1501 mandate, the Minimum inwrought Coverage Provision, which requires every citizen, besides the exempt, to maintain a minimum take aim of health care by 2012. Those choosing not to participate will be subject to a momentary tax with their annual in conform to tax returns. Since its creation, this particul ar(prenominal) mandate has caused a great deal of controversy. In early 2010, the earth of Virginia passed into law, a statute that forbade any type of mandate that would force citizens to secure health insurance. They believed such a mandate would cause an immediate and chronic burden of the State and its citizens. Although it was getd months before the PPACA statute it is clear the Virginia statute come in direct struggle 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 astir(predicate) the constitutionality of the PPACA statute. Through the states 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 cash in ones chips is accordance to the ir scheme. Forcing a state to participation or penalty is irresponsible 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 step over the delicate boundaries allotted to Congress. Although there are a soldiery of precedents to rule in favor of the defendant, doing so could leave a agent 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 goodness of the poor, sick, and unfortunate. Although, the court supports the intentions of the PPACA statute the means of accomplishing them cannot be backed.