Introduction
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, abbreviated as ACA, is a comprehensive healthcare coverage designed to alleviate healthcare costs for all individuals in the US by providing insurance coverage. Since its signing into law, millions of Americans have reaped unmatched benefits from its medical insurance offers, of which a majority were unemployed individuals and those living in poverty. However, the ACA is one of the most controversial resource management topics in the US since its opposition questions its viability. Conservatives protest against the increased premiums and higher tax rates imposed on individuals already covered. In addition, some individuals argue that the ACA diminishes health service quality and increases medical practitioners’ workload. Nevertheless, there is vast information supporting that the ACA has improved the living standards of all Americans because it facilitates access to medication and procedures that most individuals cannot afford. Hence this essay draws on various resources to support that the ACA has more benefits than setbacks.
The Affordable Care Act
ACA or Obamacare is a medical service program and government regulation launched in 2010 to address health disparities and the unequal distribution of healthcare resources in the United States. The act was proposed to facilitate three main objectives, including reforming the private insurance industry to accommodate small-group consumers, expanding medical coverage and Medicaid to employed individuals living in poverty, and altering decision-making processes in the healthcare sector (Zhao et al., 2020). However, these objectives depend on the choices provided by private firms rather than regulatory powers, allowing them to be shaped by government incentives. The idea behind the act is to advocate for more access to high-quality healthcare at an affordable price by spreading and sharing the risks between individuals. Consequently, everyone insured under the medical covers provided access to more affordable healthcare without limits (Glied et al., 2020). However, the idea of sharing costs between individuals is not welcomed by some individuals, especially conservatives, who claim that the increased tax is an infringement on individuals. Similarly, the decision of whether to abolish the ACA has been argued in court numerous times, but its complexity limits stakeholders from making rash decisions against it.
Arguments for the Affordable Care Act
Since its inception, the ACA has allowed more than 20 million individuals in the US to gain access to health insurance coverage mandated by the law. Before the ACA was implemented in 2013, about 16.6% of people under 65 years had been insured. In the first quarter of its enrolment, the number of uninsured individuals within this age group reduced to 10%, and these rates have been diminishing since then (McIntyre & Song, 2019). According to the Department of health and Human Services, more than one million people enroll in Medicare and Medicaid during every enrolment period. If the act were to be abolished, all uninsured people would have limited chances to receive preventive healthcare services, and most of them would avoid visiting healthcare institutions even when sick due to the high costs of treatment (Zhao et al., 2020). Consequently, this will result in higher costs after seeking treatment due to the disease’s development. However, continuously implementing the ACA will ensure that more people are covered and ultimately reduce overall healthcare costs. Therefore, it would be unwise to revoke the Affordable Healthcare Act.
The Affordable Care Act is also beneficial to the US economy because it uncovers solutions to lessen the number of resources and money spent on healthcare solutions. The ACA helps the government and shareholders in the healthcare industry to cut costs by investing in projects aimed at reducing the costs of healthcare while increasing the quality of service delivery. For example, one of the initiatives propagated by the ACA is the Partnerships for Patients program, designed to limit the number of institution-acquired conditions (Zhao et al., 2020). Financial estimates suggest that the initiative has helped save about $28.2 billion dedicated to healthcare and more than 125,000 lives from 2011 to 2015. Healthcare expenditure consumes a considerable portion of the gross domestic product in the US. In 2014, the value accounted for 17.5% of the GDP and was forecasted to increase to 20.1% (Glied et al., 2020). Consequently, the rising costs contribute to various budget deficits, obligating the government to cut down on essential services like improved education and infrastructural development. However, by cutting down costs, the government can focus on other pressing issues like economic development and housing.
The ACA has also reduced health disparities, especially among marginalized groups and individuals living in poverty, as it covers issues across all individual demographics. Population-based medical disparities are a critical setback in healthcare because healthcare data reveals significant adversities. For example, African Americans are more likely to die from chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension compared to Whites and Hispanics. In addition, research by McIntyre & Song (2019) reveals that more Hispanic students report attempted suicide than individuals from white racial backgrounds. Therefore, abolishing the Affordable Care Act would harm all individuals, especially ethnic minorities and marginalized communities, due to the nature of their challenges. A study by Zhao et al. (2020) suggests that repealing the ACA might increase the number of uninsured African Americans by more than 8% annually, with fears of more individuals lacking efficient access to healthcare. Thus, stamping out the Affordable Care Act will increase systemic issues as the government and shareholders in other sectors will be forced to deal with several negative reparations.
Similarly, the Affordable Care Act has shifted healthcare priorities and medical practice from treatment and disease management toward prevention. According to Michener (2020), about 3% of the budget allocated to healthcare is channeled to solutions aimed at preventing ailments. However, about 86% of healthcare revenue is spent on treating and managing chronic conditions, which is a highly preventable public health problem (McIntyre & Song, 2019). The ACA has made it its mission to promote healthcare prevention initiatives by allocating more funds to research and public health strategies like creating awareness to reduce the rates of diseases in communities. Through the Prevention and Public Health Fund, the ACA pays for efforts to rid the US of chronic healthcare conditions (Zhao et al., 2020). Moreover, the ACA obligates insurance premiums to cover health benefits that can help alleviate individuals’ issues in the future and prevent costly comorbidities. Therefore, apart from its economic benefits, the ACA facilitates unmatched public health benefits aimed at improving the future of all Americans.
Arguments against the ACA
The ACA has faced heated criticism, especially during Triumph’s administration due to several inefficiencies associated with the program and political motives. Some individuals argue that the ACA is unlawful because it coerces individuals into taking medical coverage and making payments. According to critics, the government should not force people to purchase private commodities, thus rendering the ACA illegal (Jacobs & Mettler, 2018). Nevertheless, taxpayers in the US cover the medical costs of uninsured people who receive medical attention in the ER. Therefore, it is better to make monthly payments in the form of healthcare insurance than to pay taxes annually to cover these issues. In addition, the government charges a particular amount of tax to individuals without health insurance. Hence, an individual mandate on health insurance is legal and constitutional because it is a form of tax.
Additionally, critics of the ACA argue that although Medicare and Medicaid have alleviated individuals’ issues and improved access to healthcare services, they have increased health practitioners’ workload, resulting in poor quality health service delivery. Medical attendants operate in high-pressure environments characterized by dynamic factors. Consequently, the ACA makes it easier to access healthcare institutions and high-quality demand services (Glied et al., 2020). However, the government has not reciprocated the number of medical personnel to service these individuals, meaning that nurses and clinicians experience extreme burnout due to increased workload (Michener, 2020). Although this argument is sound, the ACA is an act that is still in its developmental stages. Therefore, continuous improvement initiatives can allow stakeholders and policymakers to note its weaknesses and take the required action to advance healthcare coverage and service quality.
Additionally, critics argue that the ACA contributes to perverse incentives for insurance service providers, thus going against its goals and objectives. The act obligates insurance companies to provide all individuals with equal premiums regardless of their financial status or health status. As a result, it encourages overcharging healthy individuals and undercharging people with comorbidities. This means that insurance providers prefer and have a strong incentive to take on healthy individuals and avoid sick individuals who utilize organizations’ revenue (Jacobs & Mettler, 2018). Hence, in a competitive environment, insurance providers are bound to undermine the needs of sick people by providing high deductibles. Similarly, the structure of the ACA allows insurance service providers to issue out narrow networks to save on revenue and risks associated with health coverage (Michener, 2020). In other words, insurance companies know that wealthy individuals with medical conditions can purchase premiums specifically designed to meet their healthcare needs. Therefore, they leave out all the best hospitals and medical practitioners when selecting services for less fortunate individuals in ACA plans. Nevertheless, the government and respective stakeholders are still working to patch up these discrepancies.
Conclusion
The Affordable Care Act was initiated during a period when the US was going through tough economic times after the 2008 recession. Although many individuals were working towards their financial stability, a majority were left out of employment and other opportunities. Therefore, it is unreasonable to ignore the benefits the act has had on the US population because many people would have suffered without a healthcare cost-sharing program. Individuals who oppose the ACA argue that it ignores individuals’ rights to consumerism. Moreover, although they claim that the ACA has facilitated poor health service delivery and provides perverse incentives to insurance companies, the program is still advancing and aims to address these issues in the future. Nevertheless, the ACA, through its advocacy for equal access to healthcare services, has improved individuals’ livelihoods by diminishing the costs of medical attention, saving resources utilized in healthcare, and encouraging a preventive approach to good health, which is critical to positive development.
References
Glied, S. A., Collins, S. R., & Lin, S. (2020). Did The ACA Lower Americans’ Financial Barriers
To Health Care? A review of evidence to determine whether the Affordable Care Act was effective in lowering cost barriers to health insurance coverage and health care. Health Affairs, 39(3), 379-386. Web.
Jacobs, L. R., & Mettler, S. (2018). When and how new policy creates new politics: Examining the feedback effects of the Affordable Care Act on public opinion. Perspectives on politics, 16(2), 345-363. Web.
McIntyre, A., & Song, Z. (2019). The US Affordable Care Act: Reflections and directions at the close of a decade. PLoS medicine, 16(2), e1002752. Web.
Michener, J. (2020). Race, politics, and the affordable care act. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 45(4), 547-566. Web.
Zhao, J., Mao, Z., Fedewa, S. A., Nogueira, L., Yabroff, K. R., Jemal, A., & Han, X. (2020). The Affordable Care Act and access to care across the cancer control continuum: a review at 10 years. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 70(3), 165-181. Web.