This is not an argument about whether the government should be interested in health There is a government health program the problem now is how far should such a program.. backed with government money and some government control, be allowed to go. "
Consider this quote is recent? Think again, it comes from an article written in April 27, 1949, by James Harlow.
It is now 63 years later and America is still facing the same problem with the reform of health care.
But to what extent the federal government does when it comes to reform? Pretty far - reform greatly extends the role of government in health care, allocates more money for federal health programs than ever before, and requires each citizen to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
The individual mandate for health insurance will be the first time the government asked its citizens to purchase a financial product or pay a tax. In March, the Supreme Court will begin to decide whether the mandate is constitutional. If the Supreme Court finds that the federal government is going too far with the mandate and the reform of health care will be a wash. But on the other hand, if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate then every citizen will be required to have health insurance in a few years.
Does the individual mandate has set a precedent for future legislation if it is constitutional? Then, to what extent the government is allowed to go?
0 Komentar