Much like the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in favor of President Barack Obama’s 2010 Affordable Care Act, opinions at the University of St. Thomas are mixed about Thursday’s ruling.
The most controversial aspect, the individual mandate requiring Americans to have health insurance, was ruled valid as a tax; the decision affects how people will receive health care and medicine.
Junior Chet Forsman is pleased with the decision.
“Personally, I think it’s good that more people have access to health care,” Forsman said.
Director of Health Services Madonna McDermott said that the ruling is beneficial for students, especially those with a pre-existing condition.
“I believe it helps keep health insurance affordable for our students,” McDermott said. “Sometimes they wouldn’t be able to get a good health insurance plan because of a pre-existing condition … they wouldn’t be able to get insurance, or they’d have to pay a lot of money.”
However, junior Derek Hilgers worries about future consequences.
“There’s always a concern that if everyone is forced to get health insurance then the insurance companies will exploit that and raise costs,” Hilgers said.
Professor of ethics and business law Dawn Elm said the ruling does affect a citizen’s freedom of choice. However, in order for the United States’ free market to function, Elm said there needs to be a health care safety net.
“If in the free market we had no intervention or regulation of any kind, there would people who would die because they don’t have health care,” Elm said.
Junior Rebecca Ross said there are logical arguments on both sides of the Supreme Court’s decision.
“It’s good that everyone with get health care,” Ross said. “Even though things would be more expensive … it’s a necessary evil.”
Katherine Curtis can be reached at curt1354@stthomas.edu
I’m surprised and somewhat miffed that this article doesn’t at all touch on the religious liberty concerns associated with the upholding of Obamacare (which includes the controversial HHS contraception mandate).
Ryan, that is hardly controversial. Admittedly, it **is** one of the few talking points left for conservatives in the health care debate, who, more than likely, use contraceptives themselves anyway. Gotta love double standards!
Daniel, the HHS mandate forces Catholic organizations and pay for things contrary to their morals, and that’s something that everyone, whether they’re Catholic or not and whether they agree with Catholic teachings or not. An attack on the religious freedom of some people is an attack on the religious freedom of all people. It would be unacceptable to force Jewish delis to serve or pay for pork, and it should be equally unacceptable to force Catholic organizations to provide and/or pay for abortifacients and contraceptives.
Forcing a Jewish deli to serve pork is not like requiring Catholic orgs to provide employees with health insurance that can be used to cover birth control. The more appropriate, and less misleading, comparison would be requiring the Jewish deli to pay its employees, and then one of those employees happens to buy pork with her proceeds from work.
Brendan, nothing precludes an employee for paying for birth control with their own money, but that’s not what the HHS Mandate does. The HHS Mandate forces all employers, even religiously-affiliated ones, to provide and subsidize contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient prescription drug coverage in the health plans offered to their employees. This isn’t a case of employees using the money they earn to buy those things, this is forcing religious organizations to violate their own religious missions, which is both unjust and unconstitutional. Religious freedom is the most sacrosanct of all our constitutional rights and people of all religious faiths should be alarmed and outraged at the HHS Mandate. The HHS mandate infringes on the religious liberty of both religious organizations and individuals and the government has no right to infringe on the religious liberty of either.
@Brendan: The analogy you just made is actually a very good one — for the world WITHOUT the mandate. Employees of Catholic orgs will be paid and, if they choose, may purchase insurance or supplemental insurance or just straight-up contraceptives with their pay. Michael’s analogy is much closer to fitting the circumstances of the mandate.
Fortunately, you’re all wrong: while the contraceptive mandate was not part of the case before the Court this time around, both the conservative dissent AND the liberal majority had language clearly indicating that they will strike down the mandate when it eventually comes before them. It is unconstitutional, and it looks like everyone on the Supreme Court knows it.