“Constitutional” Ruling on US Healthcare Reform Is Critical

In Japan’s view, the ruling was foreseen. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), a reform of health care in the U.S., is constitutional. The ruling is likely an advantage to President Obama, who is seeking re-election in November. With powerful political influence, the law, unerring in judgment, gives health care to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.

However, the U.S. is a country based on individualism and self-reliance. Loud voices of opposition protest that subjecting the uninsured to a fine infringes upon individual liberty. There is also opposition to the U.S. spending $940 billion over 10 years. Judging the Democratic Obama administration’s health care bill to be unconstitutional, Republican governors took their case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the fine for not purchasing health insurance could be interpreted as a tax. Taxes are constitutional; therefore, so is the fine. For this reason, the Supreme Court has no business upholding or overturning the law, and its implementation cannot be stopped.

Nine judges serve on the Supreme Court: Four are from the President’s Democratic party, and five are Republican. Surprisingly, Chief Justice Roberts, who was nominated by the former Republican President Bush Jr., determined the law to be constitutional, which led to a 5-4 decision saving the law. When the law’s constitutionality was challenged, American society was in inevitable shock, and President Obama’s re-election campaign was given the yellow light. It seems that the Supreme Court wants to avoid political involvement and leave the issue to the voters in November’s election.

While the Affordable Care Act was a big achievement for the Obama administration, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, declared that he will repeal the health care bill on day one if he is elected president. Even if Obama wins re-election, the Republicans could win a majority in the Senate and House and repeal the law.

There are all kinds of public opinions strongly opposing the health care reform. The opposition is characterized by arguments against government intrusion into the affairs of individuals and fears that the healthcare bill will raise taxes and increase the federal budget deficit.

But national healthcare was the U.S.’ “unfinished dream.” Since the Democratic Johnson administration in the 1960s instituted Medicare for people 65 and older and Medicaid for poor people, no major reforms were made to health insurance in the U.S. For the U.S., the only advanced nation without health care for all, this constitutional ruling should be critical.