The Affordable Care Act - Essay Example

Business Law II Business Law II The Affordable Care Act is necessary and proper because it calls for fewer reforms in employer reporting processes than in packages sold explicitly to employees. This demand is also the reason insurance businesses are fixing their benefits. Under Obamacare, insurance businesses use increasing costs as a reason to adjust their benefits (Emanuel, 2014). Healthcare costs are a still rising at double the rate of inflation even though the general healthcare costs are rising at the slowest rate in decades. As a result, the affordable care act must lower the rate of increasing healthcare costs by mandating the licensure of the health insurance sector (Emanuel). Since its enactment, insurance businesses and actuaries depict the progression of Obamacare as a contributor to the long-term trend of employee-benefit reformation, does not have much to do with health care legislation. Obamacare is also appropriate because beneficiaries get more preventative care amenities from licensed insurance enterprise. These benefits include an annual welfare “visit,” mammograms, and additional savings on prescribed medication (Emanuel). I would apply the Saint Leo University core values of community and respect to the Affordable Care Act by referring it First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The freedom provided by this amendment is applicable to the Affordable Care Act since it does not infringe the exercise of Christianity in businesses by their employees. However, a dispute may arise over as prescription of contraceptive medication under Obamacare healthcare packages. Saint Leo University simulates its essence estimates Christianity, which is against contraceptive medication. As a result, making serving the community can become contradictory or conflicting for employers, employees, or organizations covered by the Affordable Care Act. In terms of a comfortable stewardship, the Affordable Care Act is in line with God’s law is expressed by Saint Leo University. Insurance businesses that fail to adhere to a federal, contractual requirement after agreeing to coverage by Obamacare violate God’s law. The order by all 50 states that vehicle owners have to provide at least auto insurance to enjoy the state-contracted privilege of driving that vehicle within the state is not fair. First, the vehicle owners without auto insurance are suspended authoritatively from driving within the respective state (Cohen and Dehejia, 2004). This suspension can last up to three years, or until the owner gets out auto insurance. Methodical evidence acquired from employing contributory variables for research shows that vehicle insurance does have ethical risk costs that result in rises in traffic deaths. The same study found out that increases in accident liabilities generated by no-fault liability legislations resulted in rises in traffic deaths (Cohen and Dehejia). Clearly, the need for auto insurance, in order to drive within a given state, is unnecessary. Whatever other benefits that auto insurance generates emerges from the frequency of vehicle insurance since shifts to no-fault obligation systems have a considerable negative impact on traffic deaths (Cohen and Dehejia). I would apply Saint Leo University’s core railings into my actions against the requirement of auto insurance by respecting the Bible’s stance on overall insurance, which is neutral. Since Saint Leo University employs Christianity into education to facilitate an essence of belonging, it is only right to consider a biblical perspective on the issue. The Bible does not promise any financial, credit, legal, or health care benefits. From this point of view, auto insurance becomes a means of saving money for authorities, the vehicle owner, and any other parties possibly involved in a traffic accident. However, this does not mean that members of Saint Leo University have to be so dependent on vehicles, especially when they cannot afford insurance. Those with auto insurance are unequally died non-believers from the same state enjoy the state-granted privilege of driving, which is against Saint Leo University’s core values. The Workers Compensation Insurance is good employees and employers in the sense that it caters to both their interests. When organizations with more than 15 workers, providing them with clinical treatment in the event of disability or time loss is efficient for both parties (Moore, 2008). Workplaces that often face more physical risks than psychological or emotional bonds, reducing claims from the workers can be advantages for the employer. This insurance policy was designed to protect workers and employers as well. Even in the event of re-employment support, the Workers Compensation Insurance keeps claims from employees at a minimum. There is no fundamental denial of rights under the Workers Compensation Insurance. First, workers compensation insurance allows injured workers to notify their employers of the injury. A reasonable amount of time is allocated to injured employees when attempting claim their Workers Compensation Insurance (Moore). Second, this policy imposes very few statutory requirements for injured employees when filing a claim. The limitations include two different procedures, are a statutory period for injured employing official file for a workers compensation claim. Second, the process includes a period exclusively for filing that varies state to state. Third, the Workers Compensation Insurance aligns with other employee rights. This alignment protects the buyer from possibly exploitative workers. For instance, employees were injured while intoxicated or seek treatment for a medical problem that is usually not covered by the Workers Compensation Insurance (Moore). This insurance policy is in line with Saint Leo University’s core values terms of community and stewardship. The terms of this policy are reasonable enough for Christian institutions to purchase and implement them. This coverage expresses Christian values that Saint Leo University seeks to extend the community. Even when the institution is not at fault, in the event of an injured student or faculty member, it is advisable for administration to help the individual financially without filing any claims under the Workers Compensation Insurance. The requirement to have Professional Malpractice Insurance for the privilege of carrying a license to practice the respective profession in a given state is an abusive mandate. Professional malpractice insurance causes a moral threat to overall liability insurance in the particular context of intermediary risks. In the event of professional malpractice, moral dangers undertake dimensions that are largely not present in first party insurance (Parsons, 2003). Consequently, professional malpractice insurance produces additional layers of doubt that adds to the hardships that insurers with obligation disclosures experience significantly. Moral risks come up in specifically critical and complicated forms in the event of malpractice insurance. As a result, some fields of the tort/ malpractice coverage system might become unstable integrally. Challenges faced by insurers today partially originate from the complicated external setting enveloping malpractice risks. The Professional Malpractice Insurance is a contributor of these challenges since employers frequently have to tackle high levels of doubt on a range of legal, clinical, scientific, and business matters (Parsons). Certainly, this doubt is right to be expanded by the lengthy periods that numerous liability claims develop. Insurance against professional malpractice includes a broader array of interests. As a result, exceedingly more active persons than other forms of insurance will certainly generate patterns of human incentive, action, and particularly complicated feedback. The infamous instability of malpractice insurance markets comes up partly from the above complication. Along with the moral risk header, the infamous instability of malpractice insurance shows how abusive this mandate is to employers as it is to blue and white-collar employees (Parsons). From the point of view of Saint Leo University, Professional Malpractice Insurance remains an unchristian form of contract. The institution collaborates with people from all forms of professions. Extending a defensive mechanism to them as employees, partners, or even employers is understandable. However, a mechanism that entails state licensure has state ties and conventions that do violate Saint Leo University’s core value of respect. Showing respect for one’s methods of practicing a certain profession is feasible through the reduction of the riskiness of the profession. Protecting one’s malpractice is disrespectful, particularly when the professional has defrauded or injured his or her client or patient. References Cohen, A. and Dehejia, R. (2004). The effect of automobile insurance and accident liability laws on traffic fatalities. Journal of Law and Economics, 47, 357-393. Emanuel, E. (2014). Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act will Improve our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System. New York: PublicAffairs. Moore, S. (2008). Understanding Workers Compensation Insurance. Los Angeles, CA: Cengage Learning. Parsons, C. (2003). Moral Hazard in Liability Insurance. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 28(3), 448-71. Read More