Roles of the executive and judiciary on the act

The Executive as a branch of the government plays an imperative role in ensuring that the health law is enacted. First, the president has to sign the legislation into a bill as that is the only assurance that the act would be implemented. The president could either use the veto powers in the congress or even the powers to issue executive orders. With these two powers, the president can see the act signed into law and thus enact among the citizens of the United States. Also, the president could issue orders or rather regulations that would see his administrators at the executive level ensure that the requirements of the act are provided in all the health organizations within the country. It is right to argue that the president being the head of the executive has the powers of signing bills and acts into laws and this he can do even without support from the Congress since he has the veto powers. This implies that the president is capable of having the act implemented in the company by first signing it into law. If the Act is being opposed by some of the members of the Congress yet he sees or rather deems it to be of great significance, then he may sign it into law even without considering the senators and representatives’ choice. This is the primary role that the executive would play in ensuring that the law is implemented.

Role of the judiciary on the Act

The supreme court in the United States has a caseload that is appellate, and they’re its decision cannot be appealed by any organization. It may, however, consider appeals that are filed with higher state courts or even the appellate courts at the federal level. The ACA looks forward to addressing the issue of lack of health care insurance among millions of Americans. These Americans that are short of the health care insurance are active participants in the health market in the United States and thus consume the health care services that they do not pay for. The ACA is seen to contain a minimum coverage provision and this it does through the amendment of a tax code as well as provision of individual mandate which presupposes that by 2014 a penalty would be issued to people that fail to purchase and maintain a minimum level of health insurance yet they are nonexempt individuals. The act also called for an expansion of the services offered by the Medicaid and this was to realize the states have to accept to receive the funds from the federal government for Medicaid and an employer mandate to get the health coverage for the employees.

It was not long after the ACA was passed at the congress that Florida and 12 other states took part in bringing in actions in the United States district court for the northern communities of Florida. They were looking for a declaration that would see the ACA deemed as unconstitutional based on some reasons that they had to present to the court (Owen 58). Surprisingly, thirteen other states joined Florida and the twelve other states and later, the national federation of independent businesses and the individual plaintiffs also came in to accede to the revolt. The district court had to do something since the ruling on this matter would determine the extents with which the act was being implemented in the country (Owen 58). First, it demanded to know if the plaintiffs were in possession of standings to bring in the law suits. From such a question during the trial, the court determined that brown had a standing and such was so because she did not have health insurance and had to come up with financial arrangements to ensure compliance with the provision (Owen 58). This made her eligible to challenge the minimum coverage that was to take effect as from 2014. Also, the court made a decision that Idaho and Utah each had standings and this was so because each of the states that they presented had statutes which presupposed that their residents ought to be exempted from the provision of minimum coverage (Owen 58). The legislature, could instead of scrapping it away, make the law more accommodative by listening to the complaints’’ view of the law and then reforming or rather amending it in such a way that it conforms to accommodate everyone. That way, there would be very few people complaining about the act. Therefore, we can assert that the main role of the Supreme Court and the judiciary at large is to ensure that the act is put in such a way that it accommodates everyone in the society without having to be biased.

Leave a Reply