Category: Obamacare

Obamacare is an act of the government of the United States of America that was formulated and signed into law in order to give affordable insurance services to the citizens. The health insurance act of 2010 has become very popular, not only to the citizens of the United States of America but also the population worldwide. The Act was meant to ensure that the people living in the United States of America are all covered by the health insurance, regardless of their income. The reason is that these families to not get enough cash to ensure their safety. The Obamacare insurance scheme is meant to ensure that even the low-income families in the United States of America can secure a health insurance plan that will be offered by the help of the government.

The Obamacare will have a huge effect on the populations tax payment. The initiative, as proposed by the head of the government, is meant to offer affordable care for all the citizens of the United States of America. The citizens will, therefore, fund the project through taxation. Taxation is one of the many ways that the government gets money to fund its expenditures. A tax can be described as a the percentage of money that is charged to the individuals income, goods and services produced or imported and on the profit made. Providing affordable healthcare will be essential to the investors as their workforce will have a good health that will allow them to offer their time and skills on a full-time basis. On the other hand, taxpayers will experience a change in taxation as discussed below.

The Obamacare targets higher income earners who will contribute more towards the project. In the essence of ensuring that equity is observed, the government will come up with a taxation system where those are earning higher being taxed more than those earning less. The idea is that higher income earners have more funds to support their household than the less earning group. When the two categories are equally taxed, the lower income earners will experience hardship in funding the households and the rest of the activities. The formula used in taxation has outlined that an extra tax of 0.9% will be charged to all the workers earning more than $ 200, 000. The strategy implies that higher income earners will contribute more to the initiative.

Obamacare initiative will lead to increased taxation on the individuals income derived from investments. Most of the people who are not employed by the government do invest in various fields. Their core reason for investment if to earn a profit. The government taxes the profit earned annually for the purpose of funding various projects. In order to effectively fund the Obamacare medical project, the government is introducing a 3.8% tax on the profit earned by individual investments that make a profit of $200,000. For a married couple, the 3.8% tax will be charged if the profit hits $250,000. The tax on investment exceeds the usual tax as Obama care is an expensive initiative. The citizens and investors must contribute more in order to sustain the project. The investors have lamented over the increased charges as it seems to take away much of their hard earned profits.

Another attribute that denotes the Obamacare medical cover initiative entails the contribution made by the individuals covered by the project. When individuals get involved in the payment of medical cover premiums, they are subjected to tax relief. The relief on tax is meant to encourage more people to join the activity. Due to the introduction of Obamacare project, tax relief will be offered to individuals contributing more than 10% of their gross income to any other medical cover. The percentage is much higher than the previous requirement of 7.5%. The amount is practically higher to hit and, therefore, most of the population will somehow contribute largely to the Obamacare.

The Obamacare also affects the prices of the medical facilities as a result of imposing taxes on them. The strategy will lead to a tax of 2.3% on every medical facility produced by the manufacturers. In other words, manufacturers will be required to pay a 2.3% on every item that they produce for medical use. The imposed tax will lead to the increase in the prices of medical facilities. Increasing the price of the medical facilities will disturb the growth of the private medical providers as the extra tax will be passed to the buyers. The public hospitals being funded by the government will not experience the burden. For the private hospitals, they will face difficulty in acquiring the more expensive facilities. The strategy to increase the tax on medical facilities is viewed as a long-term strategy of the government to have a monopoly over the control of medical facilities.

The Obamacare medical care will be an expensive initiative to the citizens. Theoretically, it seems as only affecting the working class and investors. In reality, every citizen will be affected by the project as taxes imposed on various commodities consumed domestically will lead to increased prices of commodities. The domestic and other household goods are presumed to become more expensive. The government projection that determines to cover all the lower income citizens for free by 2016 is a huge challenge. Taxes on household goods will be the way to go in order to cover the expected expenditure to run the project. In other words, all the citizens will feel the pain of increased taxes on various products as a means of funding the project.

The Obamacare insurance scheme is one of the best insurance projects that any government can think of as important to the nation. Although there is some disagreement with some members of the society, the scheme will highly transform the lives of the citizens of the United States of America in a positive way. The health of the economy will be achieved through peoples ability to access health services and will bring happiness in their lives. Although the project is vital to the citizens, there will be a need to engage experts in designing a better funding strategy.

References

Reece, Richard. Understanding ObamaCare: Travails of Implementation, Notes of a Health Reform Watcher. New York: West Bow Press, 2014.

Tate, Nick. ObamaCare Survival Guide: The Affordable Care Act and What it Means for You and Your Healthcare. New York: Humanix Books, 2012.

Atlas, Scott.Reforming Americas Health Care System: The Flawed Vision of ObamaCare. New York: Hoover Press, 2014.

Introduction

With regards to approach issues, ‘access to care’ centers around access to health care services, products and medical coverage. This incorporates having the option to discover clinicians and care suppliers, including medical clinics and drug stores, that give the consideration humans need. Such consideration ought to be geographically available and secured by medical coverage. Access to protection additionally includes having the option to discover coverage that addresses a issues and incorporates the specialists, different clinicians, and care suppliers that a person and his/her family needs. Affordability is a basic part of the two sorts of access, which is the reason it is covered in its own segment. Access to specialists, clinicians and care suppliers can be restricted by some medical coverage plans’ systems. For instance, some insurance plans, for example, health management organization (HMOs), may not cover any consideration that patients get from ‘out-of-arrange’ suppliers or clinicians, while different kinds of medical coverage may charge greater expenses for patients who use out-of-organize clinicians and suppliers ( Healthywomen, April 2020)

Encouraging access is worried about helping individuals to order fitting medicinal services assets to protect or improve their health. Access is a complex concept and in any event four perspectives require assessment. On the off chance that administrations are accessible and there is a satisfactory supply of services, at that point the chance to acquire social insurance exists, and a every human may have access to all care which is required(Irimia R, G M, July 2002).

The degree to which a human ‘obtains entrances likewise relies upon money, hierarchical and social or social cultural barriers that limit the usage of administrations. Consequently, get to estimate as far as usage is reliant on the is everyone able to afford, physical access and worthiness of services and not just sufficiency of supply. Service accessible must be important and viable if the population is to ‘access palatable health results. The accessibility of administrations, and boundaries to get to, must be considered with regards to the varying viewpoints, health needs and material and cultural settings of various groups in the public eye. Value of access might be estimated as far as the accessibility, use or results of services. Both level and vertical components of value require thought (Irimia R, G M, July 2002).

Access to far reaching, quality social insurance services is significant for advancing and looking after health, prevention and care for various disease, decreasing pointless handicap and premature born death, and accomplishing health value for all Americans. This point zone centers around 3 parts of access to mind: protection and well insurance coverage, health services, and practicality of care (PsycEXTRA, April 2000).

History

Inside the most recent decade explicitly, access to medicinal services has increased increasingly more significance, assuming a basic job inside the last political race. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s presidential running mate, said ‘on the off chance that human services is a right, at that point the individuals who give it become hirelings of the individuals who need it and would be denied of ‘being brokers like every other person in a free society.’ He contemplated that an all-inclusive medicinal services plan, not at all like Obamacare would tie specialists and other human services suppliers to the desire of the administration. On the other hand, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are upheld of widespread, prompting ‘Obamacare’, a human services plan that is moderate and accessible to everybody. On the off chance that one decides not to select any social insurance plan, they should pay a small fee (Salman S, April 2004).

[bookmark: _Hlk38620894] Universal healthcare has gone under assault for an assortment of reasons, essentially financial. Be that as it may, financial reactions of any single model of all-inclusive social insurance, for example, Obamacare, do not address whether permitting each resident medicinal service is moral. In the event that one believes life to be a privilege and the obligation of the legislature to encourage that directly inside sensible cutoff points, at that point it legitimately follows that general social insurance isn’t just alluring, however a commitment of the administration or government (Salman S, April 2004).

The patient Protection and Affordable care act (PPACA) is a government rule that contains a lot of social insurance changes passed by congress and marked into law by President Obama. it was intended to grow clinical protection inclusion to Americans that didn’t as of now have it by offering reasonable and serious rates through a recently made Health protection Marketplace, giving sponsorships to people dependent on capacity to pay (George Pozgar.D, 2016).

Why access to healthcare service important?

Access to care signifies ‘the opportune utilization of individual health services to accomplish the best health outcomes.’ It requires 3 unmistakable advances: Gaining section into the human services healthcare (through insurance coverage) Accessing an area where required medicinal services administrations are given (geographic accessibility) Finding a social insurance supplier whom the patient trusts and can speak with (individual relationship). Access to care impacts one’s general physical, social, and psychological well-being status and personal satisfaction. Access to care often varies based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and residential location (PsycEXTRA, April 2000).

There are barriers includes to access the care which are like high cost of care, inadequate or no insurance coverage, lack of availability of service due to various reasons, lack of cultural competent care. These barriers to accessing health services lead to: Unmet health needs, Delays in receiving appropriate care, Inability to get preventive services, Financial burdens, Preventable hospitalizations (PsycEXTRA, April 2000).

Understanding access to care causing ethical and legal issues

The Access to Care topic area encompasses 3 components: coverage, services, and timeliness. When these three components are hampered they have caused ethical and legal issues.

In 2016, 28 million Americans younger than age 65 were uninsured, about a 16 million diminishing since 2013.Health protection changes, for example, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), assisted with stretching out inclusion to numerous beforehand uninsured people. Before the finish of the 2015 enlistment time frame, 11.7 million Americans were accounted for as having picked a protection plan through the ACA Marketplace. Medicaid extension states saw protection rates that declined 52.5% from 2013 to 2015, while states that did not receive development saw just a 30.6% decrease in uninsured (Robert J, April 2020).

The uninsured are significantly less prone to have primary care than the uninsured; they likewise get less preventive care, dental care, chronic disease management, and behavioral health counseling. Those without protection are regularly analyzed at later, less treatable ailment stages than those with protection and, generally having more terrible health results, lower personal satisfaction, and higher death rates (Robert J, April 2020). Medical insurance coverage assists patients with picking up section into the insurance health care. Absence of enough coverage makes it hard for individuals to get the medicinal services they need and, when they do get care, loads them with enormous doctor’s visit expenses. Uninsured individuals are: more liable to have unexpected poor status, less liable to get clinical consideration, more prone to be diagnosed later, more liable to die prematurely (PsycEXTRA, April 2000).

Improving access to medicinal care depends to a limited extent on guaranteeing that individuals have a typical and continuous source of care (that is, a supplier or office where one consistently gets care). Individuals with a standard source of care have better health results, less inconsistencies, and lower costs. Having a primary care provider (PCP) who fills in as the typical source of care is particularly significant. PCPs can create significant and supported associations with patients and offer coordinated types of assistance while rehearsing with regards to family and community. Having a typical PCP is related with: More prominent patient trust in the provider, better patient-provider communication, Improved probability that patients will get suitable consideration, lower mortality from all causes (PsycEXTRA, April 2000).

Improving care incorporates expanding access to and utilization of proof based preventive administrations. Clinical preventive administrations are administrations that: prevent illness by advancing solid practices in individuals without hazard factors (e.g., diet and exercise guiding) prevent illness by giving assurance to those in danger (e.g., child vaccination) Recognize and treat individuals without any indications, yet who have chance variables, before the clinical ailment creates (e.g., screening for hypertension or colorectal disease) Notwithstanding essential consideration and preventive care, emergency medical services (EMS) are a urgent connection in the chain of care. EMS incorporate essential and propelled life support. Remarkable advancement has been made as of late to guarantee that everybody approaches quickly reacting EMS; it is a significant exertion in improving the strength of the human (PsycEXTRA, April 2000).

Practicality is the health care system capacity to give social insurance rapidly after a need is perceived. Proportions of timeliness include: Accessibility of appointments and care for sickness or injury when it is required, Time spent holding up in doctors offices and emergency department (EDs). The deferral in appointment between distinguishing a requirement for a test or treatment and really accepting those services can contrarily affect health and expenses of care. For instance, delays in getting care can prompt: Expanded emotional trouble, expanded complications, Higher treatment costs, Expanded hospitalizations. Actual and perceived challenges or postponements in getting care when patients are sick or harmed likely reflect critical issues to care. Prolonged ED hold up time: Diminishes patient satisfaction, Expands the quantity of patients who leave before being seen, Is related with clinically noteworthy delays in care, Foundations for expanded ED hold up times remember an expansion for the quantity of patients going to EDs, with a great part of the expansion because of visits by less intensely sick patients. Simultaneously, the all-out number of EDs in the United States has decreased human (PsycEXTRA, April 2000).

Issues that ought to be checked throughout the following decade include: Expanding and estimating protection inclusion and access to the whole consideration continuum (from clinical preventive administrations to oral social insurance to long haul and palliative consideration) Tending to inconsistencies that influence access to medicinal services (e.g., race, ethnicity, financial status, age, sex, incapacity status, sexual direction, sex personality, and private area), Evaluating the limit of the healthcare system to offer types of assistance for recently safeguarded people, Deciding changes in medicinal care needs as new models for the conveyance of essential consideration become increasingly pervasive, for example, the patient-focused clinical home and team based consideration. Checking the expanding utilization of telehealth as a developing strategy for conveying proper access to care.

Conclusion

Healthcare access to care with low income families have caused with no insurance, unable to pay co- payments, no access to care. New York Presbyterian Hospital recently noted lot of people are having language problem. Determinants incorporate segment factors (age and sexual orientation), social structure (training, occupation, ethnicity, and different elements estimating status in the network, just as adapting and the soundness of the physical condition), and health convictions (mentalities, qualities, and information that may influence view of need and utilization of health administrations). Universal healthcare has gone under assault for an assortment of reasons, essentially economic. Notwithstanding, financial reactions of any single model of widespread social insurance, for example, Obamacare, don’t address whether permitting each resident human services is moral. In the event that one believes life to be a privilege and the obligation of the legislature to encourage that directly inside sensible cutoff points, at that point it legitimately follows that all-inclusive social insurance isn’t just alluring, however a commitment of the administration. However, others would state that care is a benefit. In any case, the very establishment of life is healthcare, and if millions have not the way to manage the cost of it or access it as others do, is the life of such an individual unfit to get human services any less commendable than somebody who can bear the cost of and get to the best clinical science brings to the table? Many accept that the Obamacare puts forth a good attempt to guarantee that purchasing human services isn’t obligatory for everybody (another moral issue), by permitting individuals to swear off any medicinal services plan at the expense of a small fee. Be that as it may, where does the ethicality lie in this? (Salman S, April 2004).

Reference

1. Irimia R, G M, July 2002, Journal of health services research & policy Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12171751?report=abstract
2. PsycEXTRA, April 2000, Access to Health Services Retrieved from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/Access-to-Health-Services
3. Salman S, April 2004, Ethical Issues in Health Care Retrieved from https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/philosophy316/2014/04/07/is-access-to-healthcare-a-right/ (George Pozgar.D, 2016), Legal and ethical issues for health professionals. Publication by Jones & Bartlett Learning
4. Robert J, April 2020, Access to care Retrieved from https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/measures-data-sources/county-health-rankings-model/health-factors/clinical-care/access-to-care
5. ·Healthywomen, April 2020, Access to Care Retrieved from https://www.healthywomen.org/policy-center/access-care

One of the biggest controversial topics in America is healthcare, specifically Obamacare. Without Obamacare, millions of people would be without healthcare. For this reason, and many other economic factors, I believe Obamacare should not be repealed.

Economic Arguments Against My Position

a. The Affordable Care Act negatively impacts the supply of labor.

i. Obamacare reduces employment among less skilled workers as it negatively affects the reward to work for other workers. As an individual makes more money, they lose subsidies which discourage workers from working more or getting a better paying job. (2)

ii. The Congressional Budget Office stated that “The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.” (2)

iii. Compared to previous laws, individuals now have higher marginal tax rates from the ability to garnish health care subsidies at lower incomes. Low-wage workers are affected the most because they are most responsive to higher tax rates or lower subsidies. As less and less people will look for work, the production of goods and services will decline along with household consumption causing our economy to suffer. (2)

b. Obamacare develops a marriage penalty.

i. Individuals lose subsidies if they choose to marry without any change to earnings. For a couple that has two individual earners between 100 and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, choosing to get married causes an increase in effective marginal tax rates between 10 and 24%.

ii. Your income must be between the poverty level and four times that amount for your household size in order to qualify for one of Obamacare’s tax credits. The marriage penalty mainly results from the fact that the combined salaries of couples can push them out of the range of eligibility faster than if they were single and had separate paychecks. (4)

iii. This is a problem because the federal poverty level of a two-person household is less than double that of a one-person household. Say a couple is making a combined $40,000, but one brings in $29,000 while the other brings in $11,000. If they weren’t married, they would pay much less for coverage as the higher earner would pay close to $1,000 less for a silver plan and $625 less for a bronze plan. The partner making $11,000 would even qualify for Medicaid depending on that state they live in.

c. Obamacare has increased insurance premiums and the cost of health care.

i. In 2008, the average employer-sponsored family plan cost $12,680 while employees paid $3,354 of the bill. By 2016, the average employer family plan cost $18,142 while employees paid $5,277 of the bill. (5)

ii. High-deductible plans have become standard and by 2016, 51% of all covered workers face deductibles of at least $1,000. As co-pays have risen, patients are paying more out of pocket for prescriptions than they did in the past. (5)

iii. New medical treatments and drugs are very expensive, but as more sick people have insurance, they get more expensive treatments that previously, they could not afford. Expensive procedures drive up premiums for all insurance customers taking more money out of the economy that could have been used to purchase goods and services. (7)

Economic Arguments Supporting My Position:

a. Obamacare slows the growth of healthcare costs which raises employments and workers’ salary.

i. From 2010-2012, real per-capital health spending grew at an average annual rate of just 1.1%, which was the slowest ever. It is less than the long-term historical average of 4.6% that stretches back to 1960. (6)

ii. The ACA is contributing to these rates through reforms to Medicare that reduce excessive payments to medical providers and private insurers. It also did so by developing innovative new payment models that incentivize more efficient and higher-quality care. (6)

iii. Slower growth in healthcare costs reduces the growth of the health insurance premium paid by employers. In the short run, this reduces the cost of hiring an additional worker, making it easier for employers to add jobs. One study co-authored by a leading health economist found that reductions in healthcare cost growth due to healthcare reform could increase job growth by 250,000 to 400,000 per year by the second half of this decade. (6)

b. The ACA improves people’s health and makes workers more productive.

i. It expands access to needed medical care by expanding coverage. Greater access to care reduces mortality, improves mental health, and improves the self-reported health status. (6)

ii. The ACA guarantees access to preventive services recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force without cost-sharing. These services have been proven to improve health and save lives. Since 2010, more than 71 million Americans have received at least one preventive service without cost-sharing. (6)

iii. The ACA helps improve the quality and efficiency of care by giving hospitals incentive to reduce the number of patients returning to the hospital after discharge. They do so by ensuring high-quality care during the initial hospital stay or making appropriate arrangements where patients will receive care after discharge. (6)

c. Obamacare increases real spending in the economy and keeps it maintainable.

i. The growth in real spending closely matches the 4% increase in the number of Americans with health insurance since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2012. (1)

ii. Overall, people are spending more on insurance and drug prescriptions than they could before being uninsured or being covered through a bad insurance plan. People with preexisting health conditions can no longer be denied for health insurance. (1)

iii. The ACA will reduce severity of furutre recessions by safeguarding families’ access to health care and supporting household budgets in the face of job and income losses. (6)

I believe repealing Obamacare would be bad for the economy and is the wrong thing to do. The Affordable Care Act raises employment and worker’s wages by lowering the growth rate of health care costs in America. Obamacare serves another very important service as it improves the health of American’s in which it increases worker productivity and employee engagement. It also increases real spending in the economy and prevents the severity of future recessions while it accelerated our recovery from the Great Recession. Overall, the positive affects Obamacare has on the economy outweigh the negatives and it should not be repealed.

The US healthcare system is like much of American life- unequal. America is one of the most developed countries in the world with some of the best medical care, However unlike the UK and most other developed countries, the USA does not have a national health service that is free to use. This means that citizens Will have to pay large sums if they have a medical problem.

America has some of the best hospitals in the world, but access to that type of care is limited, in other words, you can only get it if you are very rich.

Therefore, if a billionaire from China gets sick, they may seek treatment in America at a world class private hospital, but poor or middle-income Americans will receive a very poor level of care. Most Americans are expected to pay for their own health care through private medical insurance. Without health insurance, many people do not see a doctor and minor conditions can develop into more major ones. People are afraid to fall sick just because they’re afraid of how much it would cost as this could lead to you going bankrupt and then lead to homelessness. Imagine what your life would be like if you were one of the millions of Americans without medical coverage. Imagine being so scared that is something happened to you or your family you could lose your own house. Wealthy individuals are likely to reap the benefits of having an expensive health care plan, while the rest may suffer from the unimaginable costs of treatments.

The coronavirus is an unprecedented pandemic which has cause serious problems for healthcare systems all over the world. However, a number of people think the situation in the US is even worse because of their inadequate system which leaves 30 million citizens without insurance. Even with the pandemic speeding US hospitals, because they rely on making profits, have had to lay off staff while demand for care rises.

In March of 2010, after many failed proposals, The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was passed by Congress. This program is designed to provide coverage for almost all Americans. It aims to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, lower the uninsured rate and reduce the costs of healthcare for invividuals.

Obamacare had made the number of people without health insurance decrease significantly while Barack Obama was president. In 2010 48 million US citizens did not have insurance, but in 2016 this number was reduced to 28 million. Obama care has also made businesses with more than 50 employees offer health insurance. Obamacare has had some success over the years, however I think there is still lots to be fixed. For example, people who don’t buy health insurance have to pay a penalty, which is called there “individual mandate” that’s fine is $695 per adult. There is also still 27.5 million people are insured.

President Trump is someone who is against Obama care, he wanted it abolished as soon as possible. This has not been possible for Trump and his party so far, but they are making process and reducing the scale of the act.

Trumpcare? Trump has made an effort to create his own health care plan, and he announced this, and his usual style, by tweeting in 2017 “Obamacare is a broken mess”. The president attempted to get his affordable health care act through in 2017, but it failed. However, there are some achievements. The Individual Mandate has been eliminated and Trump has expanded access to short term “ skinny” plans’ where people can pay less and healthcare that only lasts a year.

In 2010 President Barack Obama unveiled a new healthcare package The Affordable Care Act, nicknamed “Obamacare”. This new healthcare module was to help the currently uninsured find and afford the healthcare they were lacking. “ObamaCare expands health coverage. It does this by expanding Medicaid to single adults, expanding employer coverage, requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions, offering cost assistance on plans sold on state and federal Health Insurance Marketplaces, letting young adults stay on their parents plan until 26” (obamacarefacts,2019). This Affordable Care Act also penalizes those who choose not to get healthcare by imposing a fine on income taxes if proof is not shown that all family members have health insurance for the entire year.

The question now is should this be regulated at a federal or state level? In an article by NBCNEWS “The House, which would establish a national exchange run by the federal government, argues that setting a uniform program would help protect consumers. The Senate, which wants each state to create and run its own exchange, says states have more experience overseeing insurance plans and know their residents’ needs better” (NBCNEWS,2019). The article goes on to state that leading healthcare experts think that the state should regulate healthcare as it is able to better predict what its residents need. Many federal level backers have said that the states don’t have the funds to support this arrangement and fear “that state legislatures could be overwhelmed by powerful lobbying efforts of insurers and drug interests seeking to weaken consumer protections” (NBCNEWS,2019).

Since the Affordable Care Act has went into effect a typical American family of 4 will be expected to pay $28,000 per year or more for healthcare benefits. That is a staggering number. Average Americans with average jobs are unable to afford such high prices. Yet if they do not show proof at the end of the year while filing income tax they are penalized even more.

A few years ago, Bernie Sanders, a presidential nominee, often spoke of free healthcare like in Canada. Research shows this “a typical Canadian family of four will pay a staggering $12,935 for health care in 2018” (torontosun, 2019). While this is nearly half what Americans pay it is not truly free. “Health care in Canada isn’t free — Canadians actually pay a substantial amount for public health care through their taxes, even if they don’t pay directly for their medical services.” — The Price of Public Health Care Insurance 2018, co-author Bacchus Barua (torontosun, 2019).

Most healthcare regulations come from fundamental concerns. Most people agree that oversight is needed when it concerns such a large faction of men, women, and children. Even people with a tendency to balk at all government relationships realize this is needed to ensure continuity and functionality. While healthcare reforms are constantly in the press it is never said that it should not be regulated just that the policies themselves need an overhaul.

The origins of healthcare regulations are a turf war that has been fought for nearly 150 years by federal and state regulators. Division of control has caused tension in oversight committees from the beginning. Basic oversight of key players, such as, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are completed at a state level. Sanitation, epidemic investigations, public health programs, and restaurant inspections are regulated on a local and state level but the CDC is an essential tool for collaboration on a national level. The CDC is regulated by a federal oversight committee. The private sector entered the healthcare debates in the early 20th century. The American Medical Association (AMA) was a key player in developing the private sector. They sponsored and created many organizations that are still in effect regarding regulations. The AMA is responsible for many of the committees that oversee medical college accreditations, medical licensure and certifying specialists. Hospitals also have committees that serve as overseers called Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations JHACO). The oversee the accreditation of hospitals and nursing home facilities.

The pros and cons of healthcare are ultimately decided individually. A penalty for not having healthcare could be considered a con. Having healthcare could be considered a pro. Not having healthcare could be a pro because of the out of pocket expenses. A pro could be just paying the penalty instead of the out of pocket expenses. It is simply a personal decision. Should it be regulated at federal or state level? Again, there are many people in both camps over this issue. When the votes are tallied the majority wins either way. The nation must take into consideration what each oversight committee is regulating and who is better for the job before they can cast an informed ballot.

Works Cited:

1. Carey, Mary Agnes. “Feds vs. States: Who Should Run Health Market?” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 15 Jan. 2010, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34868472/ns/health-health_care/t/feds-vs-states-who-should-run-health-market/#.XXUpqmZ7lPY.
2. Facebook.com/obamacarefacts. “Facts on the Affordable Care Act.” Obamacare Field, Robert I. “Why Is Health Care Regulation so Complex?” P & T : a Peer-Reviewed Journal for Formulary Management, MediMedia USA, Inc., Oct. 2008, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730786/.
3. Facts, https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-facts/.
4. “How Has the American Healthcare System Changed?” HealthMarkets, https://www.healthmarkets.com/content/american-healthcare-system.
5. HunterMore, Brad, and Brad Hunter. “Nothing Free about Canada’s ‘Free’ Health-Care System: Fraser Report.” Toronto Sun, 31 July 2018, https://torontosun.com/news/national/nothing-free-about-canadas-free-health-care-system-fraser-report.
6. Paavola, Alia. “$28k: The Average Price a Family of 4 Will Spend on Healthcare in 2018. A Typical American Family of Four Insured by the Most Common Employer-Sponsored Health Plan Can Expect to Spend More than $28,000 on Healthcare in 2018, According to the Annual Milliman Medical Index Report. .” Becker’s Hospital Review, https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/28k-the-average-price-healthcare-will-cost-a-family-of-4-in-2018.html.

I was fortunate to have read some very interesting books this semester. However, the novel that speak on today is the one titled, The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You. The book The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You by author Jim Conway was a great read. However, before the details of the novel can be explained one must first have a full background of the book and author. Now when giving background on the author and novel it is only traditional to start from the beginning. So let’s begin.

Now, when detailing author Jim Conway background, it is best to use online sources. The online source Amazon.com went on to give background to author Jim Conway’s life in the following manner, “im Conway holds a PhD., DMin., plus two masters degrees. He is the author/co-author of 14 books and over 150 articles on marriage and family issues – specializing in Midlife Crisis. Jim is the former co-speaker on the national daily radio program heard on over 200 stations entitled ‘Midlife Dimensions’ plus, he has appeared on hundreds of other radio and TV programs. Jim has pastored churches for over 25 years, was the director of the Doctor of Ministry program and Associates Professor at Talbot Seminary, CA, and is currently the President of Midlife Dimensions, a counseling ministry, and he continues to write, lead seminars, and counsel people worldwide. His website is www.midlife.com.” Now when speaking on author Jim Conway, Amazon.com provided great details to give a better understanding of not only the author’s background, but progress. Yet, when speaking on the novel itself, one must have a strong understanding or background of the title of the book, the publication behind the book, and the place and time the book is supposed to be taking place in.

When speaking on the publication of the book The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You, it is known to be published by the company AHealthinsurance-forhumans.com publication. Now when speaking on the name of the book The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You the title has the word bootcamp in it. Thus, this must mean it is a tutorial on how to have Obamacare work for you. The place and time the book is set in present day, current and after the Obama administration was in the oval office. Now it is easier to have a full understanding of the book.

So, when speaking on the book there is much to provide in background and detail. When detailing or summarizing the book, I agree with the online source description of the book. As stated the summary of the book is described in the following manner, “Obamacare is much more than a website. It is a fundamental change in how health insurance works. The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp breaks the issue down into its fundamental components so that you understand how Obamacare works and how to make it work for you.

Learn the following about Obamacare Health Insurance:

• Avoid paying high deductibles while keeping your premium low
• Drastically reduce your yearly medical costs by raising your premium
• Reduce the cost of infertility treatment by thousands of dollars
• Reduce the cost of your child’s braces
• How to lower your cost of insurance even if you’re not eligible for a tax subsidy
• How to lower your cost of insurance even if your tax subsidy doesn’t
• Strategies to lower your taxable income to qualify for a tax subsidy
• The difference between The Public Marketplace and The Private Marketplace
• Why a non government compliant plan might be better for you
• Why a single family might benefit from multiple policies

This book is short, sweet and to the point. You’ve got questions about Obamacare health insurance, it’s got answers.” There were major ideas in the book, the one that stood out to me the most was the one on The difference between the public marketplace and the private marketplace. I say this because it helped me become aware of the two terms, as well as a better understanding of the two and how they are different. It is said that, “Public health insurance is insurance that is subsidized or paid for entirely by public (government) funds. Private health insurance is paid for in part or entirely by the individuals being covered. Several different public options are available in each state, but strict eligibility requirements exist. Private health insurance can be offered through an employer or can be purchased by individuals.” As the breakdown of the difference between the public marketplace and the private marketplace took place in the book, I was more interested in my insurance and how to maintain awareness of how im using it and it’s being used for my interest. With the summary of the book being better explained and what I found most interesting, one can understand why I chose this particular book.

Overall, the book The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You by author Jim Conway is a great read. This book was similar to a few books read earlier in the course because it is related to the nature of preservation and protection. What is meant by the words preservation and protection in regards to speaking on similarities of the book The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You and others read in the course is that other books like he Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You in class were about helping yourself overcome issues within the “system.” Three points I have learned from the book The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make it Work for You by Jim Conway were as followed, how to lower my cost of insurance, how to better understand the difference between the public marketplace and the private marketplace, as well as how and why a single family might benefit from multiple policies. All three of these points in the book caught my attention and left me wanting to find out more after reading the book. I suggest the book, it is a great way to gather a better understanding of ObamaCare.

References:

1. Conway, Jim, and Doug Baker. “Jim Conway’s ‘Fishin’ Holes.’” Amazon, Graphics Arts Center, 1969, www.amazon.com/Jim-Conway/e/B001J3NOOG%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share.
2. Conway, Jim. “The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make It Work for You.” The Obamacare Health Insurance Bootcamp: How Obamacare Works and How to Make It Work for You Kindle Edition, AHealthinsurance-Forhumans.com Publication, 17 Dec. 2013, Noonday, www.amazon.com/Obamacare-Health-Insurance-Bootcamp-Works-ebook/dp/B00H8TB6U4.

With the increasing costs of health care, the United States government has been drumming up support for Obamacare (Hill 10-14). However, the discussion around the issue is highly heated regarding who is supposed to enroll into the program (Pearson par. 2-3). Even the federal government has had to contradict itself several times on the issue before reaching at rather unclear decision-all residents of United States. This means that immigrants are also allowed into the program. This has not been welcome news to many people especially the conservatives and republicans (Pear par. 15).

This is what it means; immigrants who are both legal and illegal qualify. However, the government changed its mind on the issue indicating that immigrants will only qualify under special conditions, that is, when they are legally registered and lawfully residing in the US (Pear par. 3-5). This however angered many advocates who supported Obama in the last primary elections. With this, the government through executive orders made it open for all people especially the undocumented immigrants to join (Bessette and Pitney 2-3). This paper therefore seeks to explore the article by Pearson where issues around Obamacare and enrolment rates are discuused. Most importantly, this discussion will look at the issue in the context of eligibility, registration of immigrants as well as a personal opinion as to whether the system is justfied.

The incident that prompted discourse

The low number of immigrants that have been signing into the program has prompted discourse around the issue (Pearson par. 12). In most major cities where the number of immigrants is high, there are only a few immigrants who are willing to sign up. For instance, New York City has registered one of the lowest numbers of immigrants despite their number being four times the number of natives (Pearson par. 3). As it has been indicated, other highly populated states that have witnessed low enrolment rate of immigrants such as hispanics include California, Texas and Arizona. The unfortunate thing is that the enrolment ends at the end of March this year.

Aspects that I still want to know

In 2012, White House announced that young immigrants who qualify or who will be allowed to stay in the country for one reason or the other will not qualify or be eligible for Obamacare (Pearson par. 4-6). However, after some discussions with their representatives and human rights activities and protests from the United Nation, they were allowed to enroll. This however was greeted with mixed reactions. Some thinking it was a plot to document illegal immigrants and some thinking they would be deployed upon revealing their identity. Therefore, what I still want to know is whether their fears are true or whether they are well founded (Pearson par. 4).

Furthermore, I would like to know the reason why they were barred from enrolling, yet the president had earlier indicated that immigrants would be granted as long as they are “lawfully residents of United States (Sharma and Gielen 20-23). Being lawfully residents of United States, this under the law makes them entitled for government subsidies or programs such as obamacare. Previously, under managed care, there have been two types of network available to all Americans. That is, those people who can afford and those who cannot afford their own private cover. As some authors have previously indicated, the insurance plans especially for those who cannot afford forcibly direct people toward certain insurance companies they personally do not want. So, what I also want to know is whether obamacare will follow the some route or will be different.

My personal opinion

Each country usually set programs that aim to better the lives of its people and not others whichever name they call themselves-aliens, or immigrants. These programs are funded by the taxpayers money, in other words, it is usually like payback to the taxpayer. Then how can someone who has not even been paying tax be paid back. In addition, United States has always been pursuing a rigorous deportation strategy where all illegal immigrants are departed back to their country even without being given the chance to put their case forward. What then the sudden change of attitude.

This could be a way to document the number or identify illegal immigrants who are still undisclosed in order to deport them. The question then remains, if the current administration does give them some benefit of doubt, what will happen if the next administration does not. This could be a good way of identifying illegal immigrants to be deported at once. A good example would be in New York City where the number of Hispanics is so high and yet the enrolment is very small. In this place, previously before the current mayor took office, there was a “stop and frisk” policing method which was widely criticized for targeting young immigrants. Therefore, no young immigrant would take him or herself before people who are likely to incarcerate him for no good reason.

My educated/informed opinion

Every program made by the federal government though helpful to Americans, it usually has a strong political connotation around it. When the president announced the immigration policy, that is, highly conscious and respects the rights of all people, though indicated that immigrants, who are patriotic to America would be at liberty to work and express without any fear. He may have meant it. However, given that politics must have it way first, things changed forcing the white house to change its position on the issue. As things kept playing out, the president has had to change his mind on the issue over the risk of alienating swing voters particularly in the coming mid term elections in November this year.

It must be remembered that this states widely voted for the president in the last general election. In fact, the immigration law is not likely to go through the last stage of discussion in congress before the coming mid term elections. The informed reason for low rate of enrolment is that a good number of Latinos, who make the most part of illegal immigrants fear being deported. Another informed reason is that a good number of them do not even understand English.

Basing on this reason, it is difficult for them to even understand what is needed of them. The authors as well indicate that some of those who are lawfully in the United States also fear enrolling into the program as they fear being seen as a burden or public liability. As such, these immigrants are justified to register with caution although it is their right to access affordable health care (Orelli par. 1-3). The government therefore, should at assure them that the immigration bill which is still under debate will not discriminate them now that they are known.

Efforts made to disclaim the issue

With these concerns negatively affecting the success of the program, the federal government has come forward through different means to convince immigrants to enroll into the program. For instance, they have been assured that their immigration status will not be affected at all, even though these assurances have not in any way managed to encourage them to register. Individual states have also been undertaking some efforts to arrest the situation (Pipes 2-5). These efforts comprise translating English into their native languages such as Latin. In doing so, these states also make use of extensive Spanish-language campaigns just make the message understood. Some state officials have as well been using focus groups in order to encourage immigrants to register.

Background information

The issue of Obamacare can be traced back to the primary elections where it emerged that some people in America, though immigrants, are highly dedicated and working around the clock yet their loved ones die from preventable or curable diseases just because they lack affordable healthcare covers. Furthermore, it emerged that previously people on managed care were on different programs just like is the case with higher education an aspect that makes it hard for them to claim assistance or compensation in the case of an emergency. It was based on this that an inclusive and compressive healthcare plan now known as Obamacare was suggested. However, the issue of immigrants did not come up at that time until the last primary election between Obama and Romney (Pearson par. 23).

It was supposed to be a game changer, with President Obama supporting immigrants to enroll and Romney indicating that the law could create or attract more illegal immigrants. Therefore, it is this divided discourse between democrats and Republicans that has affected the enrolment rate of immigrants (Barnett and Burrus 14-15). In fact, in some state such as Arizona, the governed has already issued an executive order denying some benefits such as driving license to immigrants who enroll into the program (Pear para. 20-23). This move does not encourage people to enroll into the program.

Conceptual words employed

The article has a number of conceptual metaphors each with its own unique meaning when it comes to the issue at hand (Morgan par. 7-10). For instance, when the author indicates that “special deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals program” it simply means that the program has some special treatment for immigrants who have lived in the United States since they were young. The metaphor was used to mean that in some cases where these people would not qualify for Obamacare, they would still, depending on income, be allowed under other managed programs such as Medicaid (Pearson par. 14-15).

The other conceptual metaphor is the “undocumented immigrant”. This has been used to mean people or immigrants who are not fully registered as legally residing residents of United Sates for one reason or the other. In fact, the concept has been used to show that the undocumented immigrants are the highly targeted as they pose a huge challenge to hospitals in terms of paying for their bills given that they are facing cuts specifically in federal Medicaid reimbursements (Pearson par. 15-16). If they all sign up for the program, the obvious benefit is that public hospitals that rely heavily on managed care support from the federal government will less likely be stuck when claiming for reimbursements.

The other conceptual metaphor is “Affordable Care Act plan”. In this context, it has been used to mean programs that are funded by the federal government (Pearson par. 10-12). They are several but the most discussed ones are Medicaid and Obamacare. In this context, this concept has been used to mean that such supported programs are not restricted to holders of green cards or citizens but everybody who is living in the country (Atlas 2-4). Specifically, it refers to immigrants who actually have been hosted in the US temporarily as a result of natural disasters and political victims.

The other conceptual metaphor is “learning by word of mouth”. As it has already been discussed, it means that some immigrants do not understand the language being used to encourage them into the program. United States is known to host many recent people from different non-English speaking countries; therefore it is public knowledge that they do not understand English (Pearson par. 5-6). In this case, the concept has been used to mean other mechanisms or approaches to make them understand must be used. Already, in some states messages have been translated into their own languages. However, officials indicate that this is not only an immigration issue; it also has something to do with the bottom line (Pearson par. 3). That is, in order to make a program or an exchange function properly it is always important involve as many people as possible.

Conclusion

It is public knowledge that there are language and cultural hurdles, as well as there is a lot of hesitation amongst immigrants about accessing affordable care. The affordable care plan as supported by the president is all inclusive and seeks to reduce the burden faced by public hospital when serving undocumented immigrants. Although, their fears may be well founded based on the deportation history of United States, the government has assured them that the program is safe. However, with mixed discourses between republicans and Democrats about the program, no illegal immigrant would be willing to enroll on the first round even though; the last date for registration was set for March 31^st.

As it has been seen there are a number of issues that emerge from the articles. The government wants to secure the lives of many residents and unburden public hospitals. However, under the law, a resident of United States is one who is lawfully residing in the country. This then complicates the issue when those who are being targeted are not lawfully residing in the country. Moreover, the immigration bill which is still under discussion seems to offer the opportunity to young people who are talented, educated and are patriotic. Yet, the presidential announcement in mid 2012 seemed to contradict what was envisaged in the Obamacare.

Works Cited

Atlas, Scott. Reforming America’s health care system: the flawed vision of Obamacare. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Inst. Press, 2010. Print.

Barnett, Randy and Trevor Burrus. A conspiracy against Obamacare: the Volokh conspiracy and the health care case. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

Bessette, Joseph and John Pitney. American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship. New York, NY: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

Hill, James. Obamacare – What’s In It. New York, NY.: Primedia E-launch LLC, 2012. Print.

Morgan, David. Obamacare enrollment push for the young enters 11th hour. 2014. Web.

Orelli, Brian. Obamacare Enrollment: Does This Number Doom Health Care Reform? 2014. Web.

Pear, Robert. Limits Placed on Immigrants in Health Care Law. 2013. Web.

Pearson, Erica. New York City’s immigrant population not signing up for health insurance under Obamacare: advocates. 2014. Web.

Pipes, Sally. The truth about Obamacare. New York, NY. Perseus Distribution: Perseus Distribution, 2010. Print.

Sharma, Dinesh and Uwe Gielen. The Global Obama: Crossroads of Leadership in the 21st Century. New York, NY.: Routledge, 2013. Print.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is also known as Obamacare is aimed at reducing the cost of healthcare and increasing its accessibility. However, this set of policies can present significant difficulties for nurses who may have to face several ethical dilemmas because of new requirements.

One of the risks that researchers identify is that many hospitals become underfinanced, yet, the influx of patients will increase (Miller, 2010, p. 33). As a result, nurses will not be able to pay equal attention to the needs of patients. This issue becomes even more important given that America faces a significant shortage of skilled nurses who do not want to work in medical institutions (Aiken, 2007, p. 1299).

Thus, nursing professionals may be forced to choose between two or even more patients. Some of them may not receive the help that they need as soon as possible.

As a result, nursing professionals may have to violate the first provision of their professional code according to which the nurse must “respect the inherent dignity, worth, and uniqueness of every individual, unrestricted by considerations of social or economic status” (American Nurses Association, 2012, unpaged).

This is one of the ethical issues that should not be overlooked and nursing professionals do not want to confront such situations.

There is one conflict that may be associated with Obamacare. As it has been said, this legal act is aimed at reducing the cost of healthcare, but this strategy can potentially impair the quality of patient care. It should be noted that nurses and physicians may be asked to operate within a certain budget (Eddlem, 2010, p. 14).

The problem is that such limitations on the budget may prevent a nursing professional from practicing evidence-based medicine (Eddlem, 2010, p. 14). The main problem is that the performance of a nurse may be assessed according to its cost-efficiency, but not the patient outcome. As a result, medical workers may not be able to provide the care that patients need.

The main law that will affect healthcare institutions is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The main purpose of this legal act is to raise the quality of healthcare and reduce the costs related to patient treatment (Newman, 2010, p. 1). However, this legal act does take into account the risks of budget limitations that restrict the decisions of a healthcare professional.

Yet, nurses should also adhere to the principles outlined by the American Nurses Association. In some cases, ethical principles and the necessity to reduce costs are not compatible with each other. So, medical workers will have to reconcile their ethical principles with new professional requirements.

Overall, the attempts to reduce the costs of healthcare should be related to administrative costs, but they must not affect the work of nurses or physicians. They should be able to take decisions that best fit the needs of a patient, rather than budgetary requirements. In this way, they can help medical workers avoid ethical dilemmas. They will not have to discriminate between patients.

Therefore, policy-makers should take into consideration the complexity of the healthcare system. The initiatives that the government implements are supposed to address the rising cost of healthcare. However, this policy affected the work of nurses and physicians. This is the main drawback of Obamacare.

Reference List

Aiken, L. H. (2007). U.S. Nurse Labor Market Dynamics Are Key to Global Nurse Sufficiency. Health Services Research, 42(32), 1299-1320.

American Nurses Association. (2001). 2001 Approved Provisions. Web.

Eddlem, T. R. (2010). Outcome of Obama Care: Obama’s healthcare law has stiff costs and consequences, including less care, skyrocketing insurance premiums, likely national insolvency, and unchecked government powers. New American (08856540), 26(10), 10-15.

Miller, C. (2010). Stand And Fight. New York: Xlibris Corporation.

Newman, D. (2010). Accountable Care Organizations and the Medicare Shared Savings Program. New York: DIANE Publishing.

Introduction

Access to healthcare has always been a critical component of the American dream. The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – popularly known as Obamacare – in 2010 signified a major step towards the attainment of this dream. This legislation was meant to facilitate access to affordable health insurance coverage for every American. Notwithstanding the noble intentions of its promulgators, the Act has been the subject of extensive controversy and incessant calls for repeal. Although both its proponents and opponents advance persuasive grounds in support of their respective positions, a repeal of the Act would be disastrous as it would undermine the significant gains in terms of increased access.

Benefits of Obamacare

Obamacare signified a major boost in the efforts to enable universal healthcare in the US. According to Amadeo and Boyle (2021), the Act presents numerous benefits that, cumulatively, have contributed to increased healthcare access and insurance coverage for millions of Americans. These benefits include slowing the increase in healthcare costs, increasing the scope of healthcare insurance coverage, including individuals with pre-existing conditions, incorporating children under their parent’s coverage, and removing lifetime and yearly insurance coverage restrictions. Other advantages are making it easier for people to shop for desirable insurance plans through insurance exchanges, providing tax credits on insurance premium purchases for the middle class, and eliminating disparities in insurance coverage. A reduction of the budget deficit and mandatory insurance coverage for employees working for business with 50 or more people is also attributable to the Act. Therefore, repealing Obamacare would undermine all these benefits and the considerable progress to increase access to healthcare would have been wasted, and such an outcome would be disastrous.

Detriments of Obamacare

Emphasis on the numerous benefits of Obamacare is not a claim of its perfection. In fact, the Act also embodies various shortcomings that fuel calls for its repeal. For example, there is contention that its enactment led to the loss of employment-based health insurance for no less than 3 million people (Amadeo & Boyle, 2021). Additionally, there was a marked surge in health care costs in the short term, including in drug process and out-of-pocket costs and increased taxation for some people and businesses, including those without insurance (Amadeo & Boyle, 2021). Amadeo and Boyle (2021) also contend that the Act would result in an estimated reduction in the population with health insurance over time. Further, the premise that the Act is ineffective as its perceived benefits tend to be offset cannot be overlooked. For instance, while there was increased health insurance coverage upon its enactment for many low-income individuals, many workers lost their employment-based insurance as businesses sought more cost-effective alternatives. Hence, gains made in one area are seemingly futile because of the adverse effects experienced in other sectors.

Conclusion

Both sides of the divide make persuasive arguments for or against the repeal of Obamacare. Some emphasize the Act’s benefits, such as enhanced access to healthcare and the measured rise in costs as major reason why it ought not to be repealed. In any case, such a move would unravel all the gains made to enhance access to healthcare to Americans. Others, however, focus on the increased taxes and insurance premiums and the alleged offset of perceived gains as reasons why it should be repealed. Overall, repealing the Act without a viable alternative would be disastrous as it would impede progress towards the universal healthcare dream.

Reference

Amadeo, K., & Boyle, M. (2021). Obamacare pros and cons. The Balance. Web.

Efforts aimed at improving the quality of healthcare services can be listed among the most important goals for the government. Possessing all the necessary resources that can be used in order to analyze the situation with healthcare in great detail, responsible parties claim to do their best to design new solutions for the field of activity. Despite that, it sometimes happens that the position of people initiating changes in healthcare practices is not supported by the entire community represented by healthcare providers and their clients.

The Affordable Care Act or Obama Care can be listed among the most discussed healthcare initiatives in the world. In fact, numerous independent researchers state that the outcomes of its use in the United States are incompatible with the merits and advantages identified by the Obama Administration prior to its adoption.

The federal statute signed by Barack Obama more than seven years ago is still considered as one of the most important outcomes of his work even though the long-term consequences of the act are a controversial topic. The act was accepted by the Congress of the United States. Despite that, a few years after, it was confirmed that certain points developed within the frame of the document contradicted the United States Constitution.

Among the most important healthcare changes identified in the act, there is the decision to oblige all citizens of the United States to buy health insurance. At the same time, it was planned to provide Americans with low incomes with an opportunity to buy health insurance on special terms. Continuing on the topic of proclaimed purposes of the act, it was supposed to improve coverage conditions and quality of healthcare services for those citizens having health insurance.

According to the idea that was the bedrock of the act, it was planned to introduce a system of penalties for those citizens refusing to buy health insurance. Similarly, the penalties were supposed to motivate organizations refusing to help their employees to get health insurance. Continuing on the topic of assumed benefits, the range of measures to be implemented on the territory of the United States was expected to encourage the creation of jobs (What is ObamaCare? What is the Affordable Care Act? n.d.)

In reference to investments in healthcare, it was planned to implement a range of new financial charged for those citizens with high incomes and companies producing drugs. The combination of measures introducing new taxes, obligations for all citizens of the country, and strict control of the activity of insurance companies working with employers were supposed to significantly improve the situation for taxpayers all over the country. The authors of the administration bill believed that the act would help to reduce the budgetary gap, and this opinion was supported by a great number of specialists from the Bureau of the Budget of the United States Congress.

Speaking about the merits associated with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, it is important to note that it can have a positive influence on the health condition of uninsured people as the expansion of Medicaid and the introduction of new taxes has made healthcare more affordable (Sommers et al. 2015). In particular, health insurance becomes more affordable for social groups with low incomes. More than that, it is necessary to note that some of the points included in the activities aimed at protecting the right of citizens to be fairly treated, disregard the social group that they belong to. For instance, it is clear that people representing different ethnicities and genders are to be provided with a high-quality service in case if they get sick.

Importantly, certain studies confirm that the act has contributed to reducing racial disparities in healthcare (Chen et al. 2016). At the same time, the act intends to control the actions of employers and insurance organizations to prevent the cases when organizations refuse to provide their employees with health insurance. In addition, stricter control is very likely to eliminate the cases when companies increase insurance fees for those employees suffering from dangerous long-term diseases such as cancer.

The Affordable Care Act also states that insurance payments made by citizens should not depend on their gender, and it acts as merit, considering that gender inequality has not been estranged yet. The merits of the discussed act can also be illustrated by the fact that Obama Care has been able to reduce the costs of healthcare services. There is a range of measures aimed at reducing costs and spending, and the act is believed to have helped to slow down healthcare prices inflation in 2014 (Obama Care: 10 million strong and growing 2015).

The introduction of the individual health insurance mandates within the frame of the act is often regarded as the factor encouraging unintended consequences of proposed changes. For instance, when it comes to significant drawbacks of the act, the attention must be paid to the fact that individual mandate presents a requirement, urging people to buy services. To many people, the very idea of individual healthcare mandate seems to be a constitutional abuse.

Among other unwanted consequences of the Obama Care on the healthcare system and the society, there is the unwillingness of certain companies to hire new employees due to healthcare expenses that continued to grow again. Thus, the case of Aetna indicates that many companies are urged to reduce operation in certain states, and this fact is incompatible with the promises to improve healthcare quality (Luhby 2016). Nowadays, numerous companies lose large sums of money due to health insurance exchange encouraged by the reform. Due to that, insurance companies have to choose between two options: stop supporting the discussed reform and leave the market or makeup losses on their own.

To do that, they will be urged to increase prices for health insurance. Obviously, there will be negative consequences for common people living in the United States: as it follows from the act, they have to buy insurance plans to avoid paying the penalty. The quality of healthcare services does not seem to have increased since the adoption of the law. In fact, the implementation of Obama Care principles has not demonstrated a significant influence on morbidity and mortality associated with dangerous diseases affecting Americans. In particular, the number of patients in emergency departments is still high (Emergency department visits n.d.)

In the end, as it clear from the arguments presented by both supporters and critics of the act, Obama Care was supposed to provide numerous benefits to common citizens, but merits for certain groups exist just because of negative consequences for other groups. The introduction of individual mandate causes numerous problems for the American middle class as they do not get subsidies while prices for insurance are increasing.

The quality of health care services has not significantly improved yet even though there are some improvements for citizens with low incomes who are allowed to pay less for the services. In general, it is clear that the analysis of advantages and unwanted consequences of the Affordable Care Act has to be conducted with regard to social division and the outcomes for the particular group.

Reference List

Chen, J, Vargas-Bustamante, A, Mortensen, K & Ortega, 2016, ‘Racial and ethnic disparities in health care access and utilization under the Affordable Care Act,’ Medical Care, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 140.

Emergency department visits. n.d. Web.

Luhby, T 2016, Aetna to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges. Web.

Obama Care: 10 million strong and growing in 2015. Web.

Sommers, BD, Gunja, MZ, Finegold, K & Musco, T 2015, ‘Changes in self-reported insurance coverage, access to care, and health under the Affordable Care Act,’ Jama, vol. 314, no. 4, pp. 366-374.

What is ObamaCare? What is the Affordable Care Act? n.d. Web.