Health Care Perspective

The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a revolutionary moment in the history of healthcare in the United States. However, it left a significant amount of confusion and skepticism about just how the act would be implemented. Not only were constituents left baffled about what exactly the ACA meant for their individual coverage, it also created entire new health care exchanges that the vast majority of people had little to no knowledge about beforehand. With so many questions surrounding the ACA, individuals needed, and actively sought out, answers from those in positions of power and influence with regards to the new healthcare policies. A town hall meeting

The Affordable Care Act now makes it possible for patients to purchase coverage plans where otherwise they would have been refuted. Once intimidating and incapable of compromising their strict policies to suit each individual, the reform now holds them accountable for providing insurance to those who previously would have been deemed ineligible. Along with these early changes, young adults under the age of 26 can now partake in their parent’s insurance policies if their current employment neglects to offer them worker’s health coverage. By 2014, despite the seemingly flawless benefits, all citizens of the country are mandated to acquire health insurance or suffer the consequence of paying an annual fine, a fearful situation for low income families. Some additional restrictions placed on insurance agencies such as Medicaid are that they can no longer rescind a present client’s contract if they are diagnosed with a serious illness and now anyone can appeal a claim denial when formerly only this right was limited to only some policy holders. Though it specifically targets the connection between insurers and patients, many facets of society such as employer-employee protocols, important tax regulations, and even the country’s governmental budget are affected by supposed outcomes of the reform. Like any bill newly passed into law, there are

Frederick Thide’s article, “In Search of Limiting Principles: The Eleventh Circuit Invalidates the Individual Mandate in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,” appearing in the Boston College Law Review claims that Congress will be crippled in its “future efforts to set social welfare policy” (Thide 2012, 370) if the Supreme Court affirms the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s holding that “Congress exceeded its power under the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause by requiring individuals to purchase health insurance as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (359). In his introduction, Thide (2012) describes the economic conditions of the health insurance market that brought about the need for the Affordable Care Act and presents three main ideas to support his conclusion. As a final point, Thide (2012) warns that rejecting “the view that Congress is the primary arbiter of what is necessary and proper,” (370) under the necessary and proper clause, may “significantly constrain Congress’s power” (359) to develop and implement “novel regulatory schemes that include the use of economic mandates” (371).

On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.

The Affordable Healthcare Act is one of the most predominate issues in American Healthcare. While it was not a primary factor in the 2016 presidential election, it was a very important issue. It is important because it serves over sixteen million Americans. I will discuss through research that the two prevailing rules of thought are to either repeal the Affordable Care Act or to improve the Affordable Care Act. I will show the advantages of both and hopefully show which is better for America, not which is better for me.

Dr. Atul Gawande wrote a piece for the New Yorker titled “Now What.” It was published just one short month after President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and it addresses a few points of consideration surrounding the controversial law, points that have since compounded into intense debates. For anyone who has glanced at a newspaper or navigated the internet between then and now, it’s impossible to miss; the tension created from the passing of the ACA is palpable. Four years later, the ACA remains a hot topic, especially in political circles.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a law that become signed in March 2010. Its goal was to attempt to reform the American health care system, provide health insurance to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and lower prices related to health care. The ACA is certainly one of controversies that emerged in early 2010—the other issue is the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which additionally surpassed in March 2010. The ACA and associated rules is a part of a decades-long attempt to reform the nation’s healthcare system and make certain that greater Americans have good enough and low-cost health care coverage. It became one of the most prominent issues of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential campaigns.

The Obama affordable health care politics has caused many fights among different groups who don’t seem to share and to agree on the politic behind the ACA. The purpose of this reading has mainly been to point out the reasons of the disagreement toward the ACA.

The Affordable Care Act which is also known as Obamacare and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law on March 23, 2010 and it has not been without its share of problems, debates and controversies. One of the main points of contention with the PPACA is the individual mandate. This paper will look at the worldviews that are involved in the individual mandate, the worldviews of those that oppose the mandate, the roles and limits of the government’s side of the mandate issue and the conflicting views and ideas that have come about. The individual mandate “requires that most Americans obtain and maintain health insurance, or an exemption, each month or pay a tax penalty” . The whole purpose of creating PPACA was to “achieve near-universal coverage and to do so through shared responsibility among government, individuals, and employers” also to be able to “improve the fairness, quality, and affordability of health insurance coverage” and to be able to “improve health-care value, quality, and efficiency while reducing wasteful spending and making the health-care system more accountable to a diverse patient population” .Those were the top three aims that were pointed out in drawing up the policies for PPACA to develop what was hoped to be universal healthcare for the citizens of the United States. While the PPACA does have its benefits, such as it would cover pre-existing conditions where most private insurances do not do, more people have the

In February 2017, the news was dominated by stories and video of town hall meetings with constituents telling their representatives stories of how the ACA had benefitted them or their loved ones in one way or another (Colliver, 2017). There is no doubt that the law has helped thousands, maybe even millions of people across the country. There have also been stories of individuals who have health insurance, but are unable to use it because of high deductibles, which effectively render the insurance policies these people hold emergency only plans (Luhby, 2016). This is most certainly an unintended consequence of a law that was written with good intentions, but which needs to be modified to work with the real life situations the citizens of this country are faced with.

The act according to Obama at the signing was “the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care” (Rogers, 2014). Many Americans have gained from the PPACA but there are also those who have lost to the reform. While the intent of the act was made for the better of Americans health, Republicans deem Obamacare to be a progressing disaster and seek to demolish the law. The conception that Obamacare is beneficial to Americans has created a debate between the political parties. Different groups and individuals have taken the law and have broken down their interpretation of its true intentions. After 75 years of an unsuccessful health system some find it hard to believe that the PPACA will be effective in the long run. The many reasons range from the PPACA being categorized as socialism, communism, capitalism and/or corporatism. Through writers Catherin Evans, Gus Voss and conservative writer David Horowitz we are given insight and facts to the many questions that have derived with the passing of PPACA. The PPACA has been portrayed as a government program to help all Americans have health benefits and affordable health; but this government aid also questions how beneficial is the program and is it another approach of control.

When the Affordable Healthcare Act passed in 2010, I like many others thought it was a good idea and would make health insurance attainable for the millions of Americans who were not insured. The Affordable Healthcare Act was supposed to lower premiums for households between 100% and 400% above the poverty line through tax credits, and support innovative methods designed to lower healthcare costs. Unfortunately, this is not the case 7 years into the ACA, and millions of Americans can no longer afford the insurance offered to them through the healthcare exchange and must make sacrifices to avoid the penalty. This rise in cost has not only impacted the consumers of the exchange, but has also impacted the majority of Americans who purchase

While many Americans can enjoy the full benefits of being in a developed nation such as full access to healthcare, there are many others who only have limited access to the basic necessities. Because of this issue, the affordable care act was developed creating new laws, regulations, taxes, and subsidies as a way to ensure all Americans have equal access to healthcare. Although the law aimed to be a solution for those with little to no access to healthcare, it resulted in a number of problems that frustrated doctors and patients, and complicated the healthcare system. While some believe access to affordable healthcare for all Americans is a necessity and a reality of the future, others have determined the rising costs to sustain the law and the allegedly socialist aspects of the law that impose a “one size fits all” healthcare system on the public make it unfeasible for American citizens. The affordable care act was welcomed into law due to the promise of open access to healthcare it could potentially offer many Americans; however, the excess of regulations and limitations it places on healthcare officials, and the excess of taxes and costs to keep the system in place further limits access to healthcare for many American citizens.

The objective was clear the time for health-care reform was now, how that objective was going to be met was unclear. In William Custer’s article Risk Adjustment and the Affordable Care Act states, “There has been a sharp decline in private coverage over the last decade, and concurrent increases in public coverage and the number of uninsured” (Custer PhD, 2013). The passage of the Affordable Care Act set out in grand fashion to meet overcome some of these challenges. House Bill 3590 titled the Affordable Care Act provides changes to some very vital areas of medical coverage, including such things as: no lifetime or annual coverage limits, prohibition of rescissions, coverage of preventative health services and extension of dependent coverage and the creation of uniform explanation of coverage documents and standardized definitions (House of Representatives, 2010). Individuals who have major medical conditions will no longer struggle to maintain the coverage they so desperately need to care for their medical condition and maintain the best quality health condition. Health Insurance providers can no longer deny coverage to an individual due to a medical condition, pre-existing or newly diagnosed. Arguably one of the key areas in regards to improved health coverage was in the area of preventative health services. Insuring dependants to the age of 26 will dramatically increase the

As the implementation of The Affordable Care Act (ACA) nears, news media is featuring a large number of individuals whose health insurance coverage is being cancelled. The current administration claims that their objective is for everyone to have health insurance, but there is a gap between their new legislation and the results. American consumers are falling in the gap between private insurance plans that are too expensive, and the poorly developed government system. Despite claims from the Obama administration, the Affordable Care Act limits the American public’s choice of private health insurance plans.