Microeconomics into the United States of America - Essay Example

Once Congress passed PPACA Republican, affiliated groups filed a suit with the Supreme Court that criticized the constitutionality of the law since it considers universal mandatory health insurance. The group argues that the act contravenes the principles of the American constitution that enshrines the preservation of freedom. Influential opinion in the political world has significant levels of political and economic and political consensus in the principles highlighted under the act.

Prior to the deliberation of the Act, United States health care lacks obligatory insurance. The situation creates a significant number of people that have never had an insurance contract. Impoverished people lack the funds to pay for their health bills. Now that the country adopts the Act, the burden of health bills lies with the state health system. Those that oppose the bill cite that the system as a whole is more expensive to manage compared to any other developed country. With the new system, America is likely to spend more than $7000 per capita on health care and that is double the expense in the United Kingdom and Japan. Clinton administration is unable to convince Congress to pass that bid. The benefit of PPACA includes (1) significant reforms that include the removal of preexisting condition clauses for all the health insurance plans. (2) The new health insurance covers immunizations and preventive care. (3) The plan will serve to reduce the long-term cost in health since preventive treatments imply low costs. (4) The plan will cover unmarried children under their parent's cover until they are over 26 years. The conflicting issue is that it is mandatory to contract health insurance for all employees. The only exception is the poverty level that becomes part of the Medicaid System. The system incorporates many healthy people as contributors to the health fund. The fund can rise with no significant increase in expenditures for the costly health attention. A person with a risky expensive condition will benefit from cost shard from disposable funds other than incurring all the costs alone. Those that oppose Obama Care Law cite it is against the key principles of freedom. The issue was in the hands of the Supreme Court for them to decide on the political thriller situation and it was at stake a crucial legislative initiative in the Obama administration. A failure could imply negative consequences concerning the president's reelection. Even after PPACA passed both chambers of Congress, where Democrats are the majority, the law resulted in a long process of negotiations since not all liberals and conservatives are fully satisfied. The conservative activists would be happy with a win on their side since it would serve as a campaign strategy against the Democrats. Most of the fervent critics of the government argue from theoretical positions concerning the free markets. Some of the free markets havens such as Switzerland and Taiwan use a government-sponsored model with much lower costs than America and have better results. The costly health care system in the United States calls for reforms since America uses more than $7500 per capita to achieve a 78-year life expectancy while South Korea, Germany, Britain, and Japan use between $1500 and $4500 to achieve the same expectancy.