Affordable Health Care Act without sovereignty to native Americans - Essay Example

? Affordable Health Care Act without Sovereignty to Native Americans Introduction Affordable Health Care Act was implemented in the year 2009 with anintention to provide citizens of America and its belonging states with well framed health care services (111th Congress 1st Session, 2009). United States of America is solely entitled with the sovereignty to implement this act according to the policy suggested in the Act. But as the Act is remarked by experts to be rigid with concern to the citizens’ need, it is ought to face different consequences (ProCon.org, 2010). This paper reviews the difficulties faced by the act as well as the citizens of the U.S. with respect to the implementation of the act. Literature Review On October 29 2009, the Affordable Health Care Act was introduced in the United States House of Representatives. Through the implementation of this act, the government intended to serve the citizens of Native American nations with efficient healthcare services and that too in a minimum expense. But the implementation of health care act has provided for various contradictions to itself which has been stated by various authors (H. R. 3962, 2009). First (2005) states that inconsistency practices in US health care system are a result of insufficient consideration to the quality systems which also caused other disadvantages related to its sole purpose. One of the major reasons for the drawback is that the policies concerning healthcare system in US was tangled with issues faced in the early experiences. The practices in relation to health inconsistencies involve the social and the technical facts as significant aspects. It is very essential to identify the problems associated with the implementation of the Act by the authority responsible, so that the outcome delivers the sole purpose widely concerned on the health securities of the citizens without or with minimum social or economic consequences. So, the U.S. government’s effort should be on eliminating the drawbacks and it should also focus on improving the quality of care provided to the patients (First, 2005). Background of the Act It has been depicted in the article of Health Policy Brief (2011) that approximately 30 lawsuits have been filed by private citizens, law makers, organizations and the state governments challenging the features of the Affordable Care Act 2009 (Health Policy Brief, 2011). In the article, it has been mentioned that sec 1501 of the Affordable Care Act identifies the ‘individual responsibility requirement’, also known as Individual Mandate. By the year 2014, the provision specifies that US citizens and nationals need to maintain ‘minimum essential health insurance coverage’ or else are required to pay a penalty allotted. Coverage can be available through an employer or individuals or even through public programmes such as Medicaid and Medicare among others. This policy measure, as mentioned in the Act, can be of adverse affect as the penalty has been sanctioned. Citizens who are below the poverty line are forced to purchase the health care policy which might result into difficult prospective. Therefore, the healthcare act should not be entitled to penalise rather the act should be implemented with great care as it is a need rather than demand (Health Policy Brief, 2011). A dilemma has often aroused regarding Health Care Act. For instance the action of federal government to impose the Act was argued to be subjected to their limitations to participate in such social development issues. Danner (2011) opposes the provision mentioned in the Act, i.e. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which states the Individual Mandate. The policy of Individual Mandate states that each and every American must buy the Health Insurance or else will be penalised. According to Danner (2011), this is overextending usage of government power. Providing the health care by violating the freedom of the citizen is of no good and is also unconstitutional (Danner, 2011). Complaints by the associated states The Attorney Generals of various U.S. native nations along with the National Federation of Independent Business, Kaj Ahlburg and Mary Brown (2010) registered a complaint against the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in the US District Court Northern District of Florida, stating that the Act of Patient Protection and Affordable Care represents a unique violation of the liberty of individuals’ residing in the applicant’s respective states. It is because the act commands that all legal residents of the United States must have qualifying healthcare coverage or penalty will be imposed as tax. With the imposition of such mandate, the act overwhelmed the powers of government of United States under the Article One of the constitution and also violates the ‘Tenth Amendment to the Constitution’ (ProCon.org, 2010). As mentioned in the constitution of the United States of America, “The Tenth Amendment was to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was accepted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people” (The Constitution of the United States of America, 1996). Adding to the drawbacks of the act, the Attorneys General of various U.S. Native Nations describe an exceptional violation on the sovereignty of Native American nations (ProCon.org, 2010). For instance, the act requires that Florida needs to immensely broaden the eligibility standards of Medicaid to facilitate rise of 50 percent more enrolees or else will be penalised as commanded by the act. The act also imposes difficult new sets of operating policies and rules that Florida is compelled to follow. These sets of actions being imposed to Florida, incurred a cost of billions of dollars. Further, the Act changed “the voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program”. This raised the diplomacy of the applicant states and their neighbour states to be fundamentally based on the derogation of the core constitutional rule, i.e. The Tenth Amendment upon which the foundation of these Nations was formed (ProCon.org, 2010). Suggestion for better implementation of the Act Weaver (2010) commented that as Sovereign Nations, tribes are empowered with many advantages and opportunities to modify what have been passed in the Act and attain the sole purpose of health care for the Native Americans. Planning should include actions that influence the opportunities and advantages into implementation of real health care improvement for Native America. For the better formulation of the Act, rules implemented on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should not limit the various opportunities being provided to the Tribes (Weaver, 2010). Mackey (2009) also commented about the Health Care Act 2009 that services provided with this concern should be considered as one of the basic amenities for the citizens. Therefore, similar to other basic amenities, healthcare services should also be provided voluntarily by the government to its citizens rather than an imposition of act which also signifies penalties (Mackey, 2009). Summary According to the comment of Kelley (1994), political systems willing to implement another facet to human rights with concern to healthcare would support ‘forced transfer of wealth to pay for programmes’, which in return is likely to result in the loss of freedom of the healthcare service providers. Rise in the prices of the healthcare services and restrictions in the access of the consumers can be recognised as another consequence of the imposition of this policy measure to penalise the citizens who ignore health insurance. This can provoke trend towards equal opportunity and also can encourage the sense of collectivization of healthcare. Again as recited by Dalrymple (2009), the right to health care has no existence. So the citizens should be free to have their own choices. Thus, there are possibly a considerable number of challenges that can rise in case the sovereignty of Native American nations in this context is ignored. References Dalrymple, T. (2009). Right to Health Care. Retrieved from http://healthcare.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001602 Danner, D. (2011). Health Care Reform. Retrieved from http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001443 First, W. H. (2005). Overcoming Disparities in U.S. Health Care. Health affairs, Vol: 24(9), pp. 445-451. Health Policy Brief. (2011). Legal Challenges to Health reform. Retrieved from http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=49 111th Congress 1st Session. (2009). H. R. 3962. Retrieved from http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf Kelley, D. (1194). Right to Health Care. Retrieved from http://healthcare.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001602 Mackey, J. (2009). Right to Health Care. Retrieved from http://healthcare.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001602 ProCon.org. (2010). Health Care Reform. Retrieved from http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001443 The Constitution of the United States of America. (1996). Tenth Amendment—Reserved Powers. Retrieved from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt10.html Weaver, K. (2010). Native American Times. Retrieved from http://www.nativetimes.com/business/features/4148-rwi-benefits-addresses-power-of-indian-country-at-oiga Read More