One of the undeniably positive impacts that ACA has had on the health care delivery is the increased access to healthcare for the people with preexisting conditions (Shi & Singh, 2014). However, the opponents of the Act continue to claim that it somehow limits their access to the medical help. That notion can be easily disproved by analyzing the main provisions of the Act.
The opposition to the Affordable Care Act has mostly political and irrational roots. Most of the outspoken critics of the reform belong to the Republican Party, which has spent millions of dollars on the TV commercials aimed to destroy the public image of the ACA (Dalen, Waterbrook, & Alpert, 2015). The attitude towards the expansion of the subsidized health care is exemplified by the derogatory term “Obamacare” which is an obvious play on the party members’ opposition to the current government. Even now, when the benefits of the new system become more obvious with each passing year and the prophesized economic collapse is not happening, it is too late for the Republicans to back down. They have put too much work into trying to demolish the Act. One of the main attack vectors for them was a claim that the ACA causes people to lose their insurance. Many heartbreaking ads were aired showing people who apparently have been left uninsured by the ACA. However, the investigations by the media have shown every last one of them to be fabricated. And it makes a lot of sense. How can the Act which does not include a single point about limiting or revoking access for certain individuals leave somebody without a health care plan? Quite on the contrary, the ACA allowed more people to get access not only to the Medicare and Medicaid but also to the private insurance plans.
One of the main provisions of the Affordable Care Act is the prohibition to limit access people with preexisting conditions have to certain insurance plans. Previously, a person with a serious chronic illness like cancer or AIDS could be denied insurance or faced increased payments. That had a tremendously negative effect on the predicted health outcomes for those people. For a person with a serious chronic disease spending more money on a healthcare plan meant less money on other everyday necessities and some people, who fell into a marginal group with income high enough not to be covered by Medicaid, could find themselves unable to pay the increased rates imposed by the insurance companies. That situation did mean that an individual could be unable to get the help they direly need. With the enactment of the ACA that is no longer an issue since this sort of the clearly unethical behavior is legally prohibited. Even ignoring the other aspects of the Act, that point alone makes the ACA a worthy addition to the US law.
The politically charged discussions surrounding the Affordable Care Act are extremely detrimental to the public’s understanding of that piece of legislation. The negative publicity given to the Act by the Republicans means that people do not fully understand its implications. Most of the critique aimed at the law was either fabricated or fueled by those fabrications. The dishonest political approach can result in the legislation being revoked if the Republican president takes the office this year. However, reviewing the law clearly shows the benefits it provides for the people who need protection.
References
Dalen, J., Waterbrook, K., & Alpert, J. (2015). Why do so Many Americans Oppose the Affordable Care Act?. The American Journal Of Medicine, 128(8), 807-810.
Shi, L., & Singh, D. A. (2014). An Update on Health Care Reform in the United States. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlet Learning.