The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Research Paper Example

?Policy Analysis: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Health insurance is a major health issue in the US, as the nation’s fragmented health care system depends largely on voluntary health insurance, obtained primarily through employers and government funded programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) that act as medical safety net for the poor, elderly, disabled and some of those uninsured (Mills & Ranson, 2005, p. 548). As such, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, had gone through the hole of the needle before it had been passed into law on March 23, 2010. But despite its enactment, Obamacare has remained controversial and continued to be criticized and opposed (York, 2011), even challenged in federal court (Dawald, 2011). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act The new health care reform law, the White House (2010) claims, will give the American people better health security as it “makes health care more affordable, holds insurers more accountable, expands coverage to all Americans and makes our health system sustainable” (par. 1). The Act is to be implemented on a staggered basis, effecting immediately the provisions on a new Patient’s Bill of Rights, which the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2010), explains, aims to put an end on the manipulative practices of insurance companies that often compromise patients’ health, and to bring back to American consumers the control of their health coverage and care. To this effect, insurance companies are prohibited to limit the care patients can get and to impede patients from choosing and relating with their doctors. (sec. 2) Some of the Act’s features, which Perry and Krantz (2011) find most relevant to individuals and businesses are: Compulsory insurance: By 2013, everyone should be insured or be penalized; by 2014, employers with 50 employees and more should offer their eligible full-time employees at least a minimum health care insurance or be penalized; employers with less than 25 employees can reimburse from the federal government some or all of their employees’ healthcare cost. Tax deduction for medical expenses: By 2013, only medical expenses exceeding 10% of adjusted gross income shall be allowed tax deductions. Taxpayers who are more than 65 years old will still enjoy an itemized tax deductions for medical expenses exceeding 7.5% adjusted gross income until 2017, when the law comes into full force. Health insurance coverage: Effective September 24, 2010, for policy holders covering dependent children, health insurance plan years shall cover even adult children up to age 26; by 2018, preventive care and checkups must be included in all health insurance plans without copayment. HSA Funds: By 2011, a 20% increase on the penalty for nonqualified medical use of HSA funds shall be imposed; by 2013 the largest contribution an employee can make to a flexible spending account is $2,500 annually. (Perry and Krantz, 2011, p. 181) Obamacare: Public Enemy No. 1 If there is a law that has been criticized and opposed so strongly, it is the Obamacare, as it is being attacked from all fronts – in Congress by the Republicans, in the Federal Court, and in media. In fact, a search on Obamacare in the Internet would surprisingly bring you to a wide array of news, articles, and books that have nothing good to say about the Act. Yet, as Pipes (2010) says: Just like what the Act claims to fulfill, an ‘affordable, accessible, high quality care for all’ should be the common concern of everyone in reforming the US health care system (p. 23). Whether Obamacare is leading the nation to this direction is the heart of the controversy. Expectedly, the opposition says Obamacare is misleading the nation (Pipes, 2010, p. 23). Miller (2010) even described it “a shibboletlh of Marxism” (p. 31); while Boehner (2011) accused it of budget-busting and job-killing (p. 1). Among the many feared consequences of Obamacare as Miller (2010) has expressed are: There will be a shortage of highly specialized doctors due to lesser earning-opportunities that will result from the Act’s regulation of insurance; Due to doctor’s shortage, there will be a rationing of care which will be provided by less trained health care professionals coming from less developed countries; Taxpayers will be bankrupt and patients will be more financially burdened, as the chain effect of the Act overtaxing insurance companies; It will unwittingly encourage fraud within all areas of medicine such as black market in drugs, unlicensed store-front surgeries, widespread bribery, ‘perversion and corruption of medical science’; It will dampen medical research studies and pharmaceutical innovations; It will create an inefficient health care provision by hospitals and clinics, such as long waiting lines resulting to no care at all, and inefficient records producing wrong diagnosis, which will lead to more deaths. As such, Obamacare is not reforming the US healthcare system rather it is out to destroy the confidence of the American people in the nation’s medical care; it is out to close hospitals down and medical schools down; it is out to deform the world’s finest US medical system. (pp. 32-35). On the other hand, Pipes (2010) criticism of the Act rests on her dislike of the universal health care – the direction Obamacare tows – saying that the promises and claims of universal health care for free care is a myth. It is, in fact lesser care, citing Canada’s medical system, which she describes as substandard and antiquated. According to Pipes, health care cannot be free under a universal health care scheme, because it simply centralizes health care on government hands. Since the government is living on people’s taxes, the burden will be passed on tax payers. Worse, to prevent the spiraling of medical cost, the government will regulate spending that may result to patients’ long waiting lists even for common procedures only and substandard medical services and technologies. (p. 9-13) Obamacare: Giving Healthcare to the Uncaring As what, Sanchez, Kopp, and Sanzari (2010) have observed, compared with existing health programs, there is nothing dramatically different in the Obamacare that could have triggered dramatic opposition as it is getting today, except for expanding the insurance coverage and tightening the regulations for insurance companies (p. 63). But, this perhaps is the heart of the controversy. Obamacare dares to give Americans equal opportunity for efficient healthcare at the expense of middle class taxpayers, insurance companies, and businesses. What is wrong with maintaining young adults aged 26 on their parent’s health plans or stopping insurance companies from limiting patients of healthcare service? It wronged the insurance profiteers – This is a great deal, because just like any other businesses, insurance companies seek profits. Much more, cutting insurance profits would surely decrease even the gains hospitals and health professionals derive from insurance companies. Thus wittingly or unwittingly, Obamacare is not only whipping insurance companies, but even hospitals/clinics and health professionals from taking advantage of insured patients. And what is wrong with the federal government subsidizing small businesses to start insurance programs and expanding Medicaid to the larger portion of population? It would mean higher taxes, affecting mostly the middle class to which health professionals belong; it would mean additional budget that may “cost the nation $2.6 trillion, and add $701 billion to the [budget] deficit” once implemented fully (Boehner, 2011, p. 2) – this could mean budget realignment that could affect conflicting priorities of various sectors/parties. Though oppositions to Obamacare seem exaggerated and more politically motivated, it cannot be denied that the Act does not solve the US healthcare problem. First, the Act aims to provide health care to all, but it does so by requiring everyone to be insured, when the fact is 15.3% of US population is uninsured (De Navas-Watt, Proctor & Smith, 2008, p. 27) most probably because they cannot afford to purchase a health insurance. Second, though the intention to get everybody insured is good, to penalize those who would not get insured, as the Federal Court rules, is unconstitutional (Freddoso, 2011, p. 53). Third, Obamacare may be trying to bring to the American consciousness that healthcare is not about profits but about service and care, which as implied in Miller’s (2010) argument seems not to be the main concern of health care providers and professionals. However, what the Act fails to recognize is the fact that, “Curing healthcare is not an option – it is a necessity” Sanchez, Kopp, and Sanzari (2010, p. 63). Conclusion Healthcare policy is proven complicated as it is marred by conflicting political and business interests, commercialism, and individualism. Above all these, a common view on the root of the problem in the US healthcare system has yet to be achieved, for any healthcare policy reform to be truly reformative. One thing is sure though; Obamacare has brought healthcare issues to the fore, but it does not make healthcare problems in the US less problematic. References Boehner, J. (2011). Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law. US: DIANE Publishing. Dawald, D. (2011, May 12). Obamacare Challenged in Court and by Members of Congress. Canada Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36389 De Navas-Watt, C., Proctor, B. D., and Smith, J. C. (2008, August). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2007. Current population reports: Consumer income. US Department of Commerce. P60-235. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf Freddoso, D. (2011). Gangster government: Barack Obama and the new Washington thugocracy. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. Miller, C. E. (2010). Stand and fight. US: Xlibris Corporation. Mills, A. J. and Ranson, M. K. (2005). CHAPTER 10: The Designs of Health Systems. In M. H. Merson, R. E. Black, and A. J. Mills (Eds.), International public health: diseases, programs, systems, and policies (pp. 515-558). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Perry, G. A. and Krantz, M. (2011). Mint.com for dummies. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing. Pipes, S. C. (2010). The truth about Obamacare. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway. Sanchez, N., Kopp, C. and Sanzari, F. (2010). Destined for failure: American prosperity in the age of bailouts. Sta Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2010). Fact Sheet: The Affordable Care Act’s New Patient’s Bill of Rights. HealthReform.gov. Retrieved from http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html The White House. (2010). The Affordable Care Act. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts#healthcare-menu York, B. (2011, March 29). Inside the numbers: Independents’ opposition to Obamacare is bad news for Dems. Washington Examiner. Retrieved from http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/inside-numbers-independents-opposition-obamacare-bad-news-dems#ixzz1X0rrd7zL Read More