Constitution The Mandate that Individuals buy Health Insurance Research Paper

Constitution The Mandate that Individuals buy Health Insurance - Research Paper Examples lacked the authority under the Constitutions Commerce clause to force Americans to buy health amends or move over a penalty for the failure (Rourke, 2012, p.3).According to the proponents of the issue, the mandate modifies the internal Revenue write in code and thus constitutes a tax. It, therefore, offers Americans a choice to either purchase health amends cover or pay a tax equal to the cost of purchasing health insurance. However, people exempted from the tax let in the poor, dependents, military personnel, citizens living overseas, or individuals with a religious objection (Bluestein, 2011, p.27). This subsidizes the governments health fear program hence making it cheaper both to the government and health insurance companies as well as to families wishing to buy a health insurance.However, the introduction of the penalty for those with no health care insurance is unconstitutional since it makes Americans pay taxes. The central issue relates to the Commerce Clause. Congress argues that the Commerce Clause empowers it to compel backstage citizens not currently involved in commercial activity, to buy insurance from private dealers or pay a penalty to the national government. However, the Congress has no powers through the Commerce Clause to enact laws appalling such penalty (The Editors, 2010, p. 2). By passing the individual mandate and penalty as components of the Patient tax shelter and Affordable Act of 2010 (PPAA), Congress exceeded the powers granted by the constitution. This is because resolving such a suit ashes the role of the federal courts as noted by O Conor in New York v joined States (1992). This is the traditional and foundational function of the federal courts (Barnett, Stewart & Gaziano, 2009, p. 1).However, since no Congress has ever tried to apply the Commercial Clause in the issue of APPA casts great doubt as to whether Congress has the author ity to do the same. The Supreme court of justice in Printz v United States (1997) noted the same the reality