Obama Care Essay Examples & Outline
Are you in High School, College, Masters, Bachelors or Ph.D and need assistance with your research paper? All you need is to ask for essay help written by a specialist in your academic field. When you buy an essay from us, we offer you an original, nil plagiarized and unique paper written by a dedicated writer who is PhD or Masters qualified. MyEssayservices.com is an experienced service with over 9 years experience having delivered over 83,000 essays over the years.
The patient protection and affordable care act (PPACA) is a federal statute that was signed into law by president barrack Obama in 2010. The act is also colloquially known as the Obama care. This act was passed into law with the aim of overhauling the entire health care system of the United States of America. The act does not act in isolation. The act works in conjunction with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.
The act was made into law with the main goal being increasing the quality and the ability of all the people to afford health care through cheaper insurance option (Atlas, 2010). The act seeks to attain this by lowering the rate of the people that are uninsured through a conscious expansion of the public and private means of accessing insurance. By the increase in coverage of the insurance to most of the people in the United States, the act aimed at reducing the number of people that would be uninsured.
The act seeks to attain the goal of increased medical coverage by use of various mechanisms such as the mandates and insurance exchanges (Pipes, 2010). The law is also more accommodative to the people that would previously not qualify for the insurance cover award. The act also aims at reducing the costs while improving the quality of medical care through the enacting and the consequent enforcing of the regulation, increase in the level of competition and offering of various forms incentives in order to streamline the insurance sector (Graham, 2010).
Obamacare also had the hopes of reducing the budget deficits that the government was facing at the time while reducing the government expenditure on health. In as much as the law has been the target of various opinions from the states government and small business groups, the act has had significant impact on the healthcare sector in the United States. This paper will focus on the real issues that face the act and the stride that is has been able to bring to the nation’s healthcare system. The paper will evaluate the merits and demerits of the care act from the time of the enactment to date while offering the possible solution to the issues that face the act.
Prior to the enacting of the Obamacare, many pertinent issues faced the government. Various governmental players had previously tried to counter the problem by the introduction of new way of dealing with the issue of the healthcare that would encompass all the people and not the selected members of the public that could afford to pay for insurance or who were in the formal employment (Pipes, 2013).
The act was a means that the government would use to come up with the ultimate means to handling the issue of the healthcare (Graham, 2010). Even in the old care system, many issues were still in the balance even for the people that had the average insurance cover (Pipes, 2010). The act may be seen as a cash mill for the biotech and pharmaceutical companies. However, the issue of the biotech companies and what they stand to gain from the enactment of the act is still not clear. The focus of the media on the potential gains that the companies will make tends to overshadow some of the real motivations behind the enactment that focus on the average person in the united states of America that needs to have medical cover.
The first issue that the act addresses is the lack of the surgery option for the people that were suffering from cancer and other terminal diseases (Pipes, 2013). The initial policies were cut out to disadvantage the poor such that they would not have the access to the surgical options when they were suffering from the terminal illnesses such as cancer (Atlas, 2010). The only people that could be allowed to have the option of surgery were the rich and the ones that had adequate insurance cover (Graham, 2010). However, in the real sense, other people deserved the surgical treatment even when they did not have the finances.
The thousands that could not afford the insurance packages that covered the cancer patients ended up dying or suffering from conditions that could have been alleviated or corrected using surgical means. The patients in an attempt to stay alive would end up seeking other modes of treatment that were not authorised in order to alleviate their suffering. One of the common approaches that the patients resorted to was smoking of marijuana (Pipes, 2013). The smoking of medical marijuana is not accepted in all the states in the United States. However, the act was not practiced in the states that allow it. On the contrary, the people that came from the other states that prohibit the use of marijuana even for the medical purposes still used the drug (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2012).
This meant that the failure of one public policy was making the people resort to breaking the law in the name of reducing the effects of their illness. In worse scenarios, the people used to resort to other approaches to the issue that were uncalled for. The inadequacy of the healthcare system had proved to be the main impetus behind the unwitting willingness of the people to break the law (Graham, 2010).
The other issue that Obamacare seeks to correct is the inability of the masses to afford healthcare. The poverty indicators in the United States point out that the United States has over 15 percent of its populace living in poverty. This can be translated to the fact that over 15 percent of the people earn between 11000-23000. The people that earn this kind of money are unable to afford the health policy cover that often costs an average of 800 dollars per month. However, with the introduction of Obamacare, there is hope for the people in this class since the policy aims at providing the people with the insurance cover in an indiscriminate manner.
The poor people may also be suffering from the aggravated conditions due to lack of medical attention that is accorded to the rich (Atlas, 2010). The Obamacare seeks to rewrite the health cover with the introduction of covers that can touch on the needs of all the people. This approach is also consistent with the public policy requirements that have to cover all the people regardless of the influence and the past of the person. The Obamacare does not discriminate the care to the people according to their ability or inability to pay the premiums (Moncrieff, 2012). The care seeks to include all the people such that their treatment is not a determined by their ability to afford the care.
The Obamacare package was also enacted to deal with the trend that was pervasive in the United States. Prior to the act, the treatment of the old people was dependent on the relatives that the patient has and the financial stability of the patient. However, not all the old people have any relatives that care about their health or progress in life (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2012). This means that the old people are often victims of neglect from the people that are supposed to help them during their ailing years. The trend was neglecting whereby the patients would be tucked in an old people home and forgotten.
In most of the old people homes, the care accorded to the patient was dependent on the follow up of the other relatives of the patient. With the above predicament affecting the old patients, it was of extreme importance that the healthcare system covers all the people. The Obamacare seeks to correct the trend of neglecting the old people and providing them with the substandard care that they were accorded in the old people homes. With the advent of the healthcare system, the people were capable of attaining the desired healthcare such that they would not be treated as liabilities to the society (Moncrieff, 2012). On the contrary, the Obamacare seeks to include the old people in all the medical attention in the same manner as the young people (Pipes, 2010).
The other public consideration that is behind the Obamacare is the provision of contraception treatment to the women. The consideration was arrived at after the realization that not all the women have the required access to birth control that they would need in order for them to lead a healthy lifestyle that covers all the aspects of their health care (Oberl & Er, 2012). The Obamacare ensures that all the women have the same access to birth control.
The act accords the women the power to take charge of their life and protect themselves from being pregnant. The other package that comes alongside the contraceptive access is the increased access to the treatment procedures for the sexually transmitted infections (Graham, 2010). The women can also access the preventive services such as pap smears and mammograms in order to check if they have cancer.
This way the Obamacare seeks to remove the disparities between the wealthy and the poor when it comes to the access of medical care (Moncrieff, 2012). This is what makes the Obamacare act an essential act in the society that will be instrumental in the according it or at least close treatment to all the people. The act also looks at the possibilities of providing the people with the requisite medical attention regardless of their ability to afford the medical care.
The failure of the Obamacare could lead to serious repercussions for the people whereby they will end up suffering from the severe medical conditions that the nation’s poor has been exposed to throughout the years under oppressive and often segregating medical care. The chances of the people are better with the Obamacare than with the traditional care. The care act provides the individual with the ability to access the medical care that they need with little hustle (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2012).
The treatment that the people deserve can be easily accessed with the Obama care. The people have the power to take up preventive measures with the Obama care by undergoing affordable tests that will in the end turn the cost of medical care into minimal spending by the government. It will also increase the access that all the people have to the health care (Atlas, 2010).
However, in as much as the Obamacare received the praise for the innovations that it proposes in the provision of medical care, there are some issues that face the act that ought to be rectified if the care is going to survive. This part of the paper will look at the timeline of the care act since the time that it was enacted to date (Graham, 2010).
The professional in the medical care sector had advanced the argument that the care system that runs mainly based on the free market mechanisms in the market had severe impact on the quality (Moncrieff, 2012). Compared to the other countries that sought to guide the healthcare system in their nations, the healthcare system of the United States of America was wanting (Pipes, 2010). The government was supposed to be involved in the care provisions in order to increase the quality of care accorded to the people and reduce the mortality rates associated with the free medical care system (Yelowitz, 2009).
The nations that involve themselves with the provisions of medical care in the direct manner have fewer costs compared to the ones that have to rely on the free market system. The lack of proper health insurance cover has often led to the deaths of the people involved. However, with the introduction of the Obama care the people have more access to the medical care (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2012). The treatment that the people receive is not purely dependent on the ability of the patients to pay for the care. On the flipside, the care that the people are accorded is standard and all the people can be covered.
The cost and efficiency outlook of the government spending has reduced in a significant manner. The United States was the largest spender of a major proportion of the GDP on the world compared to other major nations of the world. The predicament made the government spend most of its money on the healthcare system that could be availed in an effective manner by the attainment of the requisite public private collaboration. The onset of the economic downturn made it hard for the employers to provide their employees with the required access to medical care (Graham, 2010). This means that the government had to bear more burdens or reducing the suffering of the people that did not have the required medical cover that would deal with the issue.
The Obama care could also be viewed as a policy that was precipitated by the current economic conditions in the area that were making it hard for the people to have the required access to medical care (Pipes, 2010). The loss of employer initiated medical cover means that the people that are unable to buy the needed medical care would be left out when it came to the access of the four types of medical services mentioned above (Atlas, 2010).
However, with the advent of the Obamacare, the affordability of the people has increased over the years to cover all the people. The inclusive nature of the Obamacare is the main force that determines the success of the healthcare provisions to all the people (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2012). The employers could only offer the medical cover up to a certain limit and the people that were on the lower cadres could on rare occasions be covered by the medical insurance.
In addition to this, the medical care providers that the people could access were limited to the ones that the employer had selected for the people (Moncrieff, 2012). The lack of choice is maybe on other major issues that made the employer backed insurance covers to be less attractive to most of the people (Ross & Ross, 2013)7. The Harvard study that made the government to come up with the medical care placed the number of deaths of the people that arose from the lack or insufficiency of the medical cover to over 100000 deaths per year (Graham, 2010). The enactment of the Obamacare may not have abolished the deaths but it has led to the reduction of the deaths by significant margins.
The people that had the private insurance were mainly underinsured. The event of a major health condition, the people that were underinsured would have to find other sources of funding that would reduce their potential of attaining the affordable medical care. Compared to that time, the current enactment of the Obamacare has led to significant reduction in the instances of the people that are gravely underinsured (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2012). The underinsurance incidences were mainly manifested in the people that had low incomes (Feldstein, 2009).
However, with the introduction of the Obamacare, the people that have low incomes have access to medical care that is relatively decent compared to what they would have in the even that they had been covered under a private plan (Moncrieff, 2012). This means that the Obamacare act has helped in the alleviation of the medical care stress that affected most of the people. Therefore, it is correct to state that the Obamacare is a success as far as the medical care provision is concerned (Pipes, 2013).
As it is a common phenomenon, many controversies surround the Obamacare. One of the main issues that have faced the law was the fact that most of the people opined that the enactment of the law would eventually lead to the increase in the number of abortions that are procured in the United States (Feldstein, 2009). Some of the people feel that the Obamacare will lead to the creation of situations that would deny the deserving the right to medical care.
Some people feel that the Obamacare will make every federal taxpayer to contribute to a plan that will cover the elective abortions (Graham, 2010). This is the case since the government and the state government agreed to federal state health exchanges. Therefore, the fact that the taxpayer is not from the states that advocate for the abortion or the state has actively voted against the direction of the taxpayer’s money towards the abortion agenda (Atlas, 2010). This outlook has been the major issue that has made the Obamacare act unpopular among the people.
The other cause of controversy in the Obamacare is that it allows the federal legal bureaucrats to come up with the rationing standards that allow the health providers to deny access to medical care to some people that deserve the lifesaving treatments even if the people are willing and capable of affording the care (Moncrieff, 2012). This means that it is possible for a person to die even if he or she has the ability to pay for the medical care. This rationing means that the government will have too much control over the lives of the people even if the people have the access to the medical care (Ross & Ross, 2013). It also beats the logic why the government would deny its people the access to medical care even when the act proposes that it is meant to increase the access (Oberl & Er, 2012).
The other issue that causes a lot of controversy in the mode of operation witnessed in the government is the increased violation of the rights of the conscience of the patients. The people that have conscience issues will have to fund the abortion causes regardless of their innate objections to the plan (Manchikanti & Hirsch, 2012). The faith issues is not well taken into consideration since most of the people that will be making contributions to the Obamacare will have to do so regardless of their reservations on the use of their taxpayer dollars.
This also means that the government will have the ability to dictate what the people will do with their money and they cannot have any objections to the proposed use of the money that the government will be proposing (Feldstein, 2009). Which this issue being a reality it is proper to reconsider the impacts of the healthcare act using a bigger scope apart from the affordability of the medical care. The people that are going to suffer because of the medical care act are also important for the making of the most effective decisions (Moncrieff, 2012). The law ought to be amended in order for it to have the right impact to the people. The areas of controversy mentioned above should be removed or some exceptions ought to be made in matters that touch on the conscience and the faith.
The other issue is the imposition of the Obamacare to all the people. The care does not allow the people to have a choice of the nature and quality of the medical care that they would need for themselves. It seems that the act was made as a rule to be followed by all the people regardless of their inhibitions (Feldstein, 2009). This is manifested in the outright imposition of the law on the state that have actively worked against the imposition of the abortion on them. In this case, the sovereignty of the people that have voted against the act has been largely reduced. The people do not have the requisite choice that makes a nation democratic. In this case, the care act is a mere imposition of the ideas to the public (Pipes, 2010).
The above aspect of the Obamacare can be largely viewed as the main sources of failure for the system (Ross & Ross, 2013). The imposition or rather the perspective among the people that the ideals that the plan holds are imposed on to the people is a major threat to the success of the plan. The public inclusion could have been the main way that the care could have attained the acceptance. However, with the increased rejection of the people against the Obamacare, there are major issues that may lead to the failure of the plan in the future (Feldstein, 2009).
However, the complaints made by the people could be the main sources of future competitiveness for the program (Pipes, 2013). The policy makers can revise the program such that it includes all the people. This way, the care will have the relevance that it deserves in order for it to survive (Atlas, 2010). The strengths of the plan have been its ability to reduce the cost of medical care to all the people. The major weakness of the plan has been the failure to include all the people (Pipes, 2010).
Atlas, S. W. (2010). Reforming America's health care system. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press.
Feldstein, M. (2009). Obamacare is all about rationing. Wall Street Journal.
Graham, J. R. (2010). Should Your State Establish an Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange?. Health Policy Prescriptions, 8 (10).
Manchikanti, L. & Hirsch, J. A. (2012). Obamacare 2012: Prognosis unclear for interventional pain management. Pain Physician, 15 (5), pp. 629--640.
Moncrieff, A. R. (2012). Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism and Libertarian Federalism in the Obamacare Litigation and Beyond. Am. JL & Med., 38 p. 288.
Oberl & Er, J. (2012). The future of Obamacare. New England Journal Of Medicine, 367 (23), pp. 2165--2167.
Pipes, S. (2010). The truth about Obamacare. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub.
Pipes, S. (2013). The cure for Obamacare. New York: Encounter Books.
Ross, B. M. & Ross, B. M. (2013). Beating Obamacare. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub.
Wilensky, G. R. (2012). The shortfalls of “Obamacare”. New England Journal Of Medicine, 367 (16), pp. 1479--1481.
Yelowitz, A. (2009). ObamaCare: A Bad Deal for Young Adults.