The Affordable Health Care Act
This paper puts into a critical and analytical focus the diversity and benefits of the Obama care. It seeks to answer fundamental questions about the advantages and necessity for the act. The affordable healthcare act mirrored with both merits and demerits deciphers its complex nature. The bill signed into law on twenty-third of March 2010 to make critical reforms in the health sector. The health care provision has attracted much of sharp reactions especially from the wealthy society protesting hefty taxes.
The goal of the Obama care is to give access to all Americans quality and affordable health care. This plan focuses on the reduction of growth in health care spending. A significant percentage of the benefits will accrue to the low and middle-income families and citizens. It achieves this through consumer protection, subsidies, taxes, regulation and insurance exchanges. Fundamentally, the Obama care provision is not a replacement to Medicare, private insurance or Medicaid (Wilensky, 2012). The primary focus of the health care facility is regulation of health insurance and practices that affect the sector.
Nevertheless, the contrasting fact is that the Obama care posse’s a lot more significant bunch of questions. Is there a need for health insurance for the richest country in the world? Is it the best the government can offer for the needs of Americans? However, the complexity of the answer to these questions is not a fragment of a sentence. Therefore, before the induction of such a debate some ground rules are principal (Mulligan, 2014). First is an agreement of the fact that the government cannot have an individual approach to protecting the desires of every citizen. Secondly is that the health cover such as the Obama care primary target, is the vulnerable middle class and poor society.
The wealthy society though consistently and constantly complaining about the plan also will benefit from the program. An optimistic look at the system ensures the acknowledgement of certain advantages. The policy prevents against gender-based discrimination, unjustifiably high insurance rates. Significant benefits worth discussion with regard to the annual limits imposed by insurance firms, as well as the right to rapid appeal of the insurance company decisions. This benefits cut across the divide from the middle class to the wealthiest in the society.
The health care industry has seen to the growth in wealth and stature of many fraudulent characters. This includes one who prescribes very expensive drugs even though the cheaper ones can work just for profits (Tate, 2012). The doctor who insistent on surgery whiles a consistent observation of the patient will ensure recovery. A doctor is busy ensuring the readmission of patients who he can monitor at home. Some companies sell machinery at extraordinary hiked prices just for profits. These cases among others ascertain an advantage of the rich over the employed middle class and the poor.
This trend in the health sector increases the cost of living since most Americans are profoundly concerned about their health. A critical look at the developed world countries alienates the United States in health insurance policies. Most of the developed world has a medical insurance policy. In contrast, one of the most riches of them argues about, politicizing the fact that it is a necessity. Fact remains that the multinational companies and big business have created their wealth through the citizens. Most of them are taking advantage of the smaller businesses or the society’s lack of knowledge. Through the articulation of the health care, the businesses get to give back to the society. This may deem improper by many who are in this class, but to some extent, it is a kind gesture.
However, the consideration of certain healthcare statistics is important. A significant 30.1 million people purchase private insurance. Many of them have had their plans cancelled by the company since it does meet the ten essential health thresholds. The cost of replacement of such is very high due to services such as maternity that they may not need. A significant 4 million people could lose their company sponsored health care plan (Wilensky, 2012). This is because many companies will prefer paying the fines and allow their employees to buy their plans.
There is a genuine sense in negative approaches to affordable health care. Nevertheless, framework solutions created specifically will solve these issues. A trivial approach to the impediments may have worse negative repercussion to the minority in the society. This will result to the upwelling of negative economic growth. The return of the United States to the set-up of insurance policies existent before will not solve problems in the health sector. Rather a degradation and increase in fraud in the health care section will form complete dominance. The health care program will be successful if approached with a positive mindset and inclusion of all individuals with equality.
Mulligan, C. B. (2014, September 8). The Myth of ObamaCare’s Affordability. The Wall Street Journal .
Tate, N. (2012). ObamaCare Survival Guide . West Palm Beach: Humanix Books.
Wilensky, G. R. (2012). The Shortfalls of “Obamacare”. The New England Journal of Medicine , 1479-1481.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX