On Nov. 17, students gathered in the Baker Center’s Toyota Auditorium for Public Policy to hear a student debate over the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
    
The two debaters were Christopher Bush, a freshman in Russian studies with a pre-med concentration, and Calvin Hiatt, a freshman in public administration. Bush defended the constitutionality of the individual mandate, while Hiatt argued against it.
    
The individual mandate is part of the PPACA that requires everyone in the United States to have some form of health insurance. Those who do not have any health insurance by 2014 will have to pay a penalty. The Supreme Court of the United States will consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate in March 2012.
    
Bush argued that Congress had the constitutional right to enact such a policy because Congress has the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. Because health insurance can be used between states, Bush argued, it could be considered an interstate commerce that Congress can regulate as it chooses, thus constitutionally validating the individual mandate.
    
Hiatt disagreed with the commerce argument.
    
“It’s not regulating commerce; it’s creating commerce by forcing people to participate in the market,” Hiatt said.
    
Hiatt also argued against the usage of the penalty fee, which people would have to pay if they do not have some form of health insurance. The penalty is being defined as an excise tax, but Hiatt argued that an excise tax covers goods consumed, while the penalty would be charged to people not partaking in a good.
    
Bush countered by saying, regardless, the Internal Revenue Service is considering the penalty an excise tax, and therefore, the penalty and the rest of the mandate are constitutional.
    
Bush also involved the audience to illustrate how health insurance could be considered interstate commerce. He asked audience members to raise their hands if they’ve been sick outside of Tennessee and used their insurance.
    
“I think I’ve just demonstrated how (health insurance) is an interstate commerce,” Bush said.
    
Hiatt conceded that Bush made “a pretty good point.”
    
After the debate, a question-and-answer session was opened, which was moderated by Dr. Carole Myers, assistant professor in the College of Nursing, and Carl Pierce, executive director at the Baker Center. Myers and Pierce fielded the questions as well as contributed information regarding the individual mandate and other legal aspects that the debaters or the audience might not be familiar with.
    
The debate was put together by Myers’ UH100 class, “Healthcare Reform: Why, What and When,” which is part of the University Honors Program. More than 60 people gathered in the Toyota Auditorium, many of them students in the UH100 class, including Bush and Hiatt.
    
“We had research teams,” Hiatt said. “Everyone had a role in the debate. We had people who greeted; we had people who wrote up a brochure. … Everyone took part one way or another.”
    
Krishna Detroja, freshman in biological sciences, enjoyed the debate.
    
“It opened views and gave people a lot to think about,” Detroja said.
    
However, she wasn’t sure which side won the debate, feeling that both sides presented a lot of information and valid arguments.
    
Undecided sophomore Sierra Sorter felt that both sides of the debate won, although she personally thinks the mandate is unconstitutional.
    
“I thought it was a very civil forum, and it provided a lot of very important information, especially considering we’re all young voters,” Sorter said.
    
Bush was pleased with the debate, feeling that everyone’s contribution really helped, including that of his opposition. His motivation for being the defender of the mandate’s constitutionality stems from his strong support of the health care reform bill.
    
“It’s a universal right that everyone have health care. It’s ridiculous to me that we haven’t done this sooner,” Bush said.