The industry of Health Care occupies a sixth of the total U.S. economy. It is the scope of the intersection of interests of powerful pharmaceutical and insurance corporations, hospitals, caregivers and the all doctors and nurses. The Healthcare Reform Act, so-called “Obamacare”, intended to empower patients and to make medical care accessible for all population. It is a 2700 pages document, which was adopted by the Democratic majority of Congress and signed by the President in March 2010.
Health policy in the United States has been undermined by an ideological division between liberal and conservative viewpoints. Thus far, American government has not acted on the popular view that all citizens must be equal in receiving health care.
Such division is evident in the realm of the United States health policy, because these two sharply divided camps have extremely divergent views; a very wide gap splits liberal from conservative outlook. This policy and intellectual gap affect all legislation and has an influence upon all inhabitants. That is why the issue of constitutionality of Healthcare reform is very urgent today. Most of the conscious citizens agreed that the majority of Supreme Court would vote against the constitutionality of the reform. Nevertheless, the resolution to legitimize the law was passed with domination of one voice; thus the judges affirmed the legality of Obama care. This resolution can be called, a historic event. The biggest surprise was that the law was not supported by Judge Anthony Kennedy, who is known for his vacillation between conservatives and liberals. Eternal conservative John Roberts had supported the law.
The fact that only five justices, including Roberts`s vote, supported the law proves that there exist an inconsistency of views on the health care system. All concerned citizens expected wise decision of Chief Justice John Roberts. His resolution caused a serious polarization and fierce controversy in American society. Many economists and politicians offer their own proposals to improve actual situation.
Health care reform affects all U.S. citizens, but primarily it corresponds to 32 million Americans who are required to purchase health insurance, the so-called “individual mandate” from 2014. This position of the law formed the basis of Obamacare.
The citizens should analyze stimulating cacophony of conflicting views of American politicians and economists. The legal background of all controversies is that Congress cannot compel citizens to purchase any goods, amenably to the Constitution (an insurance policy is a good). However, explaining the verdict, the Supreme Court Judge Roberts defined the penalty as a tax for those who have no insurance. The law is constitutional because the prerogative of Congress is to impose taxes. Thus, for the first time in the U.S. history, health insurance will be compulsory for all citizens since 2014. The most controversial issue is that The Supreme Court allowed the requirement of the citizens and residents to buy the insurance under threat of penalty. Although, during the adoption of the law, it was stated repeatedly that it is not a tax, but the requirement of “individual mandate”. Roberts explained that the law of accessible health care, does not contradict the Constitution, in general, and only parts of it might be regarded as unconstitutional.
The result of this decision was that the most liberal American president Barack Obama won an important victory, which increased his chances for reelection. Obamacare can be considered as an advantage of contemporary government.
Undoubtedly, the John Roberts`s resolution is a burning problem of American society. Only a third of Americans support the Healthcare reform of Barack Obama. It may be useful for his main opponent Mitt Romney during the next election. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, has his own outlook on Obamacare. He believes that this law kills jobs, adding trillions of dollars to the budget deficit and public debt and 20 million Americans will lose their current insurance because of the increase in price.
Despite the fact, that the law demands of all Americans to have health insurance under the threat of penalty for its absence, Barack Obama and his supporters believe that it is beneficial. After 2014, all Americans (obviously, with a substantial list of exceptions) will be required to purchase insurance or pay a fine, amounting to 1% of their income. Without the participation of young and healthy Americans who very often choose not to insure themselves, the reform will be defeated. Thus, firstly, in order to preserve it American Congress must reduce the charge of it for disadvantaged population.
The expected result is an increasing number of fines or a quick understanding that the new system does not work and finally (after the inevitable struggle), the transition to universal public insurance, with all its pros and contras. Most likely, the U.S. expects long-term increase in the tax and penalty burden on individuals and business, when conditions are within a very weak growth.
Henceforth, the insurers cannot deny chronically ill people in insurance. This is a serious loss to their budget. The number of insured consists very often of sick people, whereas healthy population delay the purchase of insurance to the last moment, or even pay fines; this matter will be critical for American economics. It can lead to conditions when employers will refuse insurance programs at a greater rate and the government should be prepared.
In conclusion, it should be said that it is possible that Obama will lose the election in November and the new administration will nullify the reform. Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to change the law, even if it is not popular in the voting booths. Therefore, the reform can lead to protracted global recession and the deterioration of the U.S. debt.