The Individual Mandate
The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) stipulates that the applicable individual shall ensure that the minimum essential coverage covers every dependent. Failing to meet the requirement on the part of the applicable individual or the dependent shall incur a penalty propelled by such failures. This provision faced divided reactions from the state immediately after implementation with some states challenging the constitutionality of the requirements mentioned above through lawsuits, with rulings depicting a divided system. Nevertheless, the ethics and politics surrounding the individual mandate indicate that it has been able to eliminate aspects that derail the attainment of the overall objective of the ACA.
Opposition to the mandate uses the constitutionality argument while the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to require people to purchase health insurance regardless of whether they are willing or not (Jost & Pollack, 2016). Other consider mandate to be ineffective and unenforceable or an intrusion to a person’s liberty, a curtailment on one’s autonomy, and freedom of choice. While all these political arguments focus on the legal dimensions, the fundamental of the mandate is not only legal but also moral and ethical.
One of the current healthcare reforms is voluntary, and it is surrounded by factors that derail access to health by all individuals. Under this system, people are not required to purchase health insurance, which means that they only do it if they want, can afford, or believe they stand to benefit. Individuals lacking health insurance fall into the categories of those that can afford it and those that cannot afford the coverage (Mcintyre & Song, 2019). The poor citizens have to decide between purchasing health insurance and meeting other basic needs such as clothing, transportation, and education. The young and health under the poor category rarely see the need for coverage. On a different note, others decide not to spend their resources on insurance, believing that they will receive care when they are sick regardless of their insurance status, thus ultimately transferring costs to others.
The individual mandate helps eliminate the ethical problems evident in the voluntary system. First, the provision helps in promoting universal coverage, creating a scenario where an additional 32 million citizens are insured. This situation creates benefits related to enhanced productivity, better health, and reduced insurance costs for all persons. From an ethical standpoint, one can argue that the mandate supports social justice, the common good, and solidarity. The mandate further protects the insurance companies from enrollment by people at high-risk stages. The requirement has also supported financial viability by creating a balance between the healthcare needs of the different demographics.
Efforts of the Republicans to repeal the ACA reflects moral umbrage while it contradicts individual liberty. Republicans fail to see the moral logic behind the need to be obligated to purchase health insurance to lower potential healthcare costs of rescue (Kim, 2016). Through a moral justification, Republicans ought not to overlook the insurance mandate while it helps establish a compassionate health system that does not allow the vulnerable to suffer due to lack of insurance. Perhaps importantly is the fact that the conservatives would be attracted to the idea of taking part in a cooperative system that upholds the paradigm of personal responsibility.
Despite that the individual mandate has been a subject of continued debate, political and ethical grounds point towards a requirement that helps maintain balance in the healthcare system. The mandate has ensured that more people are insured and do not transfer unnecessary costs to other parties. As such, the underlying concept deserves support regardless of one’s ethical and political orientation.