The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been in operation for six years since its enactment and has experienced several rocky moments that define its present structure and public perception. Overall, it is a successful initiative of the federal government to provide care for citizens universally. The successes of Obamacare include the reduction of numbers of uninsured people by 15.8 million since 2013 (Pollack, 2015). It is now part of the country’s general and official policy for management of healthcare. Its improvement will, indeed, take place, but at a less aggressive way that calls for repeal and replacement of the negativities that have covered it in the past. Current suggestions from different quarters include the allowance for employed parents to have access to new marketplaces. Besides, employers should be allowed the flexibility to offer or stop providing health insurance coverage. In its present formulation, the Act requires individuals to purchase health insurance coverage, which is anchored on the role that a high countrywide demand for insurance does to the overall cost of insurance in the country. It is a behavioral modification approach. It seeks to compel people who would, otherwise, opt to go uninsured to take insurance to lower the burden of the state in case they become sick or injured.
In the employer mandate, the Act expects firms to offer health insurance to employees and their children. Firms with more than 50 full-time employees have to adhere to the rule or face penalties. This rule has the same intention as the first, which is to build up new markets for insurance and reduce overall cost. The unfortunate thing with the two rules is that they fix both employers and individuals to these marketplaces for insurance, even when other marketplaces have cropped up and can meet their needs. There is a need for flexibility and provision of additional allowances. Moreover, many low-income earners who receive employer policy coverage are unable to get insurance subsidies for their families, even when they are unable to purchase the cover.
Overall, Obamacare has created several changes in employment relations and health coverage by introducing new options for some people. Plans that met the requirements of a gold-level were less affected by the Act. Modifications are made to those that do not meet the requirement. For gold-level, according to the definition of the Act, the provided health care plan covers 80 percent of the health costs, while individuals meet the other 20 percent from their pockets. A new marketplace for a student to get coverage through their universities is now available. Recognized student employees who meet the minimum work requirements for qualification for health cover are under a university’s plan. Students who do not have parental health cover can obtain cover under the university’s plan. This is an improvement to the weak student coverage that was available prior to the Act (Payne, 2015).
In 2017, a section of the Act, precisely section 1332, will allow the federal government to offer waivers to states. In essence, the waivers will let them modify their coverage to uninsured populations. In the past, the conflict between the Act and the desired health policies of different states ensured that there was a wide rift in coverage nationally. The tussle was between Republican states and Democrat states that had a different version and vision of the ideal health cover for their populations (Sanger-Katz, 2014). If the provisions of the section were upheld, a number of changes that significantly influence the Act would emerge. No longer will it be as rigid as its current form. Instead, the following options would be available to states.
The first option is that states may do away with their health-insurance marketplace where consumers have been accessing private insurance cover due to subsidies, which would make it unaffordable to them if they are removed. Another option that states may pursue is to repeal the individual and employer mandates. These have been the primary marketplaces pushed by the Act, despite the emergence of alternative markets (Blumenthal, 2015). Republican states may have their way of removing these mandates. In their present form, they force individuals and employers to get cover or provide cover to avoid penalties. From a social perspective, forcing people who have low incomes to get insurance or face penalties devastates their socioeconomic position. The last option that would be available to states is to establish a single-payer health system. The system would provide universal coverage for all the health needs of a qualifying population segment, instead of the current highest provision under the Act, the gold-level only offers 80 percent cover and requires individuals to meet the other 20 percent of the cover (Payne, 2015).
As Obamacare continues to impact the lives of many Americans and businesses in different ways, there are still suggestions on ways of improving it. There are indications of dissatisfaction by beneficiaries and sponsors. Groups opposing the Act in the last six years have failed to quash it. Two Supreme Court judgments have ensured that the law stands as it appears; thus, fighting against the law is a futile cause (Sanger-Katz, 2014). The opposition to the law has since shifted its attention to making the law more useful under the present reality. There have been loopholes in the law exploited by employers to avoid paying benefits to employees and evade the associated penalties. For example, full-time employees are billed at least 40 hours weekly. Many companies in the hospitality sector have reduced employee working hours to 39 or 38 to avoid falling under the bracket of compliance. The Congress pushed 30 hours as the minimum for full-time work and sealed this loophole. Nevertheless, many employers are now seeing Obamacare as an avoidable cost to their businesses, and they are opting to have non-permanent employee terms. Reporting requirements for employers have also caused an increase in the cost of compliance, as most employers have to get dedicated staff to handle the reporting, in addition to investing in a new system to comply with tracking requirements. Overall, the Act is causing the cost of business to hike, with the businesses in the most expensive states feeling the greatest effect (Lillegard, 2015).
The goal of the Act was to expand health care coverage nationwide. It would achieve the goal by offering tax breaks to small businesses and ensuring that insurance companies did not leave out the insured when they were ill. Many Americans are warming up to the idea of the plan after its initial failures, while presenting a favorable outlook for the beneficiaries. In 2016, the primary attack for Obamacare will be its impact on welfare spending, which will continue to draw sharp rifts between the Democrats and the Republicans (Volk, 2015).
References
Blumenthal, D. (2015). Why big changes could be coming to the Affordable Care Act. The Wall Street Journal. Web.
Lillegard, R. (2015). 4 Affordable Care Act issues that impact restaurants. Restaurant News. Web.
Payne, S. (2015). Affordable Care Act offers better plans, more options for students. Ocolly. Web.
Pollack, H. (2015). Improve and repair: Three ideas to strengthen the ACA. Democracy – A Journal of Ideas (38). Web.
Sanger-Katz, M. (2014). Two Americas on health care, and danger of further division. The New York Times. Web.
Volk, A. (2015). The Affordable Care Act’s side effects. Harvard Political Review. Web.