US Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment: Affordable Care Act, 2010 Upheld.

From the days of Truman, a universal health care act throughout US had always been a dream. Despite being an advanced country with an awareness towards the healthcare, still more than thirty million people in US remain uninsured. It was Obama’s farsightedness and self-belief with his favorite motto ‘we can’ prompted him to enact affordable care act, 2010. Notwithstanding its proclaimed benefits, the act was stiffly opposed by the Republicans tooth and nail. Two particular issues, the individual mandate and the federal government’s extension of the Medicaid to all states became contentious. In a few circuit and appellate courts, the act was already reviewed. Two democratic judges upheld it and two other republican judges declared it invalid and unconstitutional. Finally, when the act came under the purview of the Supreme Court of US, the highest appellate court of US, the whole nation awaited the outcome. During March, 2012, the arguments of the case in the Supreme Court of US lasted for more than 4 days the longest ever in the last 50 years of US history, representing the federal government and the states. On 28, June, 2012, in the case of affordable care act, 2010, the landmark judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court of US with a 5-4 verdict upholding the act.While 4 judges were dissenting calling the act unconstitutional in its entirety, 5 judges including the Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the act. Interestingly, though the Chief Justice did not accept the provision of individual mandate as it tried to force people to accept health insurance. On the other hand he accepted the provision for imposing penalty against those people who are not willing to purchase health insurance, calling it a tax and since the federal government is empowered to collect tax, and so he accepted the mandate. On the issue of extending Medicaid to all the states of US, the Supreme Court did not accept federal government extending Medicaid against the unwilling states. On the other hand, the Supreme Court gave them an option. Those states which are unwilling to extend the Medicaid may retain their existing fund and they may not have federal funds in future and in the case of other states which are willing for the extension of the Medicaid will have the federal funding in future for the extension of Medicaid. The republicans already opposed it in 2010, and now they are opposing it and they will oppose it in future and try for its withdrawal. The republican presidential nominee Romney owed to scrap the healthcare law when he comes to power. The four dissenting judges opposed the health care act in its entirety. In particular Judge Kennedy opined that though Congress in the issue of individual mandate contemplated only penalty, the Supreme Court converted it into tax and thereby committed an overreach. The provisions contained in the act as to eligibility for affordable health care insurance are a bit cumbersome and complicated with as many as twelve provisions. It must be simplified. Though the act is intended to extend the health care insurance to the poor, still many poor people remains uncovered. In fact the affordable health care insurance is extended to those people up to 133 % of the federal poverty line. Many express doubts about the extension of Medicaid to various states. Though federal fund is provided in full to the Medicaid extending states, there will be a gradual reduction in federal funding from the year 2020 onwards, say it will be 90 % in 2020.The issue of imposing tax against those people who are unwilling to accept affordable health care insurance will be only in 2014. In any event, the affordable care act, 2010 is the first of its kind to insure as many as 17 million people that remain uncovered in US.Another salient feature is that people with pre-existing diseases like diabetes will be covered under the affordable care act.The land mark judgment by the Supreme Court of US upholding the act is a significant victory for the President Obama administration. Perhaps it will be a major issue in the forthcoming presidential election campaign in November, 2012 between the Republican Romney and the Democrat Obama, and certainly the Supreme Court’s 5-4 verdict upholding Affordable Care Act, 2010, will play a crucial role in tilting the scale in favor of Obama.

Juvenile Crime

You might have heard that a few months ago, a school boy of just 15 years old committed a murder killing his Hindi teacher in his school in Chennai. It was even more pathetic that the court that tried his case had no jurisdiction to try him nor it followed juvenile law during the trial of the boy. A few days ago an appellate court in Chennai quashed the entire proceedings against the boy by the lower court since it lacked jurisdiction. How pathetic it is.The courts too do not apply their mind in such cases that too in a murder case committed by a juvenile offender. Let us hope at least in future such mistakes will not recur.

The idea of imposing a heavy fine against the helmet-less two wheeler drivers

The Idea of Imposing Heavy Fines against the Helmet-less Two Wheeler Drivers Though I come across a number of news items pertaining to road accidents,a very particular news about a road accident that occurred yesterday caught my attention. The said road accident was not caused by any collision of vehicles but by the sheer negligence of the victim. The victim was none other than the son of a VIP, I mean Mr.Raju, the Minister for Co-operation in the Tamil Nadu cabinet. The victim was just 27 years old riding his two wheeler rashly and negligently and without wearing any helmet.When he was driving rather speedily and rashly at NSB road Chennai, he failed to notice a speed checker ahead.He stumbled and was thrown away from the vehicle sustaining severe head injuries. Despite getting immediate medical treatment at Government hospital,Chennai and then at Apollo hospital he succumbed to head injuries and declared dead.It was really a pathetic case considering the age of the victim. The road accident clearly shows a negligence on the part of the victim.He drove speedily.He did not wear a helmet at the time of accident.Had he worn a helmet, his head would have been protected and he would not have sustained severe head injuries.He might have been even alive with some minor injuries. Though time and again, the traffic police are insisting to wear a helmet by the two wheeler drivers, they hardly follow such instructions without knowing that they are endangering their own lives. Such accidents are timely warnings for the reckless helmet-less two-wheeler drivers. Instead of resorting to periodical sudden check ups for the violators of helmet-less drivers, there must be an advance machinery or device to book the culprits then and there. At present only a nominal fine is imposed against them.Why not impose a heavy fine instead of collecting a petty sum from such reckless two wheeler drivers?After all it is in the interest of safeguarding such persons and in the larger interest of the society as well. The government may even introduce DUI type laws, imposing punishments such as heavy fines for the first time offenders, simple imprisonment for one month for the second time offenders and six months to one year imprisonment for the third time offenders and permanent revocation of driving license along with imprisonment for the recurring offenders etc. Such severe punishments will certainly motivate the two wheeler drivers to wear helmet regularly and make it their way of life.After all laws are meant to regulate and discipline the society. Isn’t it?

Nuances of Commenting Upon a Blog or an Article | #2Tagnl

Nuances of Commenting Upon a Blog or an Article | #2Tagnl

Tips for Coping with Widowhood | #2Tagnl

Tips for Coping with Widowhood | #2Tagnl

Travel Advisories for Families Traveling to Portugal | #2Tagnl

Travel Advisories for Families Traveling to Portugal | #2Tagnl

Peeping into My Neighbor’s House: Gilani’s Removal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

Peeping into My Neighbor’s House: Gilani’s Removal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan It is usual and customary that my wife often used to warn me when I peep into my neighbor’s house by frowning at me or calling upon me to do some other urgent domestic work so as to divert my attention. But, for the past few days, as an Indian I could not resist my temptation from peeping into my neighbor country Pakistan where an unprecedented judicial cum political episode, what they call it as a virtual judicial coup or a political vendetta, had taken place,when the Supreme Court of Pakistan removed the former Prime Minister Yousuf Razaa Gilani by a single stroke of pen.`While I admire at boldness of Iftikhar, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in triggering a judicial activism, it would be more right, if I call it a judicial over reach by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, I also wonder whether in a democratic country, the Court can remove a Prime Minister of a country just like that. It was even more shocking that the PPP accepted the verdict of the Court and immediately has chosen a successor in the former electricity minister of Pakistan. The events that led to the removal of Gilani by the Supreme Court of Pakistan were rather simple but very significant. Earlier, the said court ordered Gilani to reopen and investigate the Swiss bank case against Asif Ali Zardari involving as much as $ 15 million. Gilani refused to obey the order of the Court, thereby inviting its contempt. The speaker of the National Assembly did not take any action against Gilani either by way of suspension or disqualification. Hence, the Supreme Court of Pakistan by invoking an age-old constitutional provision passed an order to remove Gilani.as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. PPP swiftly reacted by accepting the verdict of the Court and electing a new Prime Minister, whose tenure will end by February, 2013. I just compare what happened in Pakistan with what is happening in India.The Supreme Court of India had passed an order many months ago directing the State of Karnataka to release 3 TMC of Cauvery water to the State of Tamil Nadu as adjudicated by the Cauvery water tribunal.But till date, Karnataka has been scrupulously disobeying the order of the Supreme Court showing scant.respect. The Chennai High Court, a few months ago had passed an order directing the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister to reinstate as many as 20,000 field workers known as Makkal Nala Paniyalarkal. Till date the order has not been obeyed. Perhaps India is a more vibrant democracy with a clear-cut compartmentalization of three institutions of democracy, the legislature, executive and judiciary without overstepping the domain of others. However, I cannot prove the act of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in removing Gilani, as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Clearly, the Supreme Court had overreached or overstepped its limits.Though the Court has said that it had only followed a Bangladesh court’s decision as precedent in removing Gilani, it has flouted many democratic norms and basics. There is a saying ‘a King can do no wrong’ which does not mean ‘a King will never commit any mistake or wrong’ but for governing the people the king is above-board. Similarly according to the modern concept of democracy, the Prime Minister having been chosen from a party that has majorityt is only responsible and answerable to the party and indirectly to the people who chose his party to power. The other institutions of democracy such as executive and judiciary will know their limits and confine themselves within their limits. Thus by removing the Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr.Gilani, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has set a bad precedent and it may create recurring problems to the weak democracy in Pakistan. Who knows, the Supreme Court of Pakistan may also embark upon into similar exercises even against the new Prime Minister of Pakistan, thereby creating an uncertain future. .

Proposed age of consent for sex from 16 to 18 regressive and draconian

Proposed age of consent for sex from 16 to 18 regressive and draconian The Government of India has proposed to enact new laws to prevent sexual offenses.In particular, it has proposed to increase the age limit for giving consent to sex from 16 to 18.However, it seems that the Indian Government has not applied its mind before making any such proposal. The Delhi High court recently declared that the proposal to raise the age limit for sex from 16 to 18 is regressive, undemocratic and draconian.Of course the court had valid reasons.Such proposals would only help the police authorities to harass the innocent victims.Besides, in the villages marriages are held mostly at an early age for which they cannot be faulted. While acquitting a person for the charges of rape against a minor girl,the court held that the government's proposal to raise the age limit of a person for giving consent to sex from 16 to 18 is unnecessary since it is draconian.Besides, before contemplating any such legislation adequate safeguards must be provided and there must be a realistic approach while deciding such cases. The case decided by the Delhi High court supported their point of view.A boy and a minor girl eloped together, got married,even had a child and were living together happily.Of course, subsequently, the parents of both families also solemnized their marriage.However, the girl's brother preferred a complaint of rape against the boy on the technical ground,when the girl eloped with the boy she was a minor.However, during the trial of the case, it was clearly proved that the boy and the girl eloped together only on the consent of the girl and consequently they even had a child.Taking all these circumstances into account, the boy was acquitted. Therefore, such cases clearly prove that sexual offenses committed during their minority will only lead to unnecessary litigation and criminal proceedings.Besides increasing the age of their consent from 16 to 18 will only lead to increase in such vexatious proceedings and unnecessary harassment of the innocent victims.Therefore, the Delhi High court rightly said the proposal to increase the age of consent from 16 to 18 is regressive and draconian.