The Supreme Court heard two hours of oral arguments today before their hotly anticipated ruling on national healthcare reform, in a case that focuses on the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” – the portion of the reform that requires every American citizen to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
While most Americans are in favor of many elements of the reform – dubbed Obamacare by its detractors – the individual mandate has raised skepticism from a slim majority of the public.
Those against the mandate say it’s an example of government overreach into the private lives’ of its citizens. Those in favor of it argue that the additional public expenses of the uninsured – whose unpaid bills default to the taxpayer – make it fair game for government involvement.
If the justices rule against the mandate, it will be the first time since 1936 that the Supreme Court rolls back a major piece of federal economic legislation for reasons of Congressional overreach.
What do you think? Does the mandate go too far into our private lives, or does the taxpayer burden make it fair game?