Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act - Essay Example

The paper "Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act" is an excellent example of an essay on social science. The ruling by the Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) gave states the option of staying out of the medical expansion. The decision of any state is in the hands of the state leaders and the nation’s governor. Based on the different perspectives held by different state governors, quite a number, nearly as half of the USA, has joined the expansion. A major factor in making such important decisions is based on the executive, legislative or executive actions to increase coverage to low-income citizens using ACA funding (Hicks & Jacobs, 2014).  This paper, therefore, seeks to explain the choice regarding the medical expansion that states face due to the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Medical Act.

On the announcement of the ruling, New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued a statement in support of the ruling. From a broader perspective, this expansion would offer health insurance to 32 million people currently uninsured. It would enable them to purchase policies through state-based exchanges and subsidies available to citizens earning between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level. The governor released an executive budget that increased the allocation of funds to medical expansion plans relative to the increased spending by the state. This budget achieves a $10.9 saving from public health and other programs through initiative measures to increase efficiency and general cost control. This program has seen increased enrolment in a number of people to over one million and a corresponding reduction in uninsured citizens.

 In analyzing the cost-benefit analysis of ACA, the enrolment fee per person is relatively cheaper, $178, compared to other states such as Alaska; $443. According to Kaiser Commission report, savings up to $33 billion could be achieved through ACA implementation that is a 90% reduction in the cost per employee, as opposed to only 50% achieved through state baseline expenditure on Medicaid. The benefits of implementing the ACA far outreach those gained from Medicaid that is due to several cost control measures that would see the cost of health care under ACA significantly reduce as opposed to Medicaid (Hicks & Jacobs, 2014). However, it is crucial to note that the incremental costs or savings of carrying out the implementation do vary across states. Overall, the incremental state costs incurred in implementing the Medicaid expansion is cheaper in relation to the amount spent by the state in Medicaid. The increase in health care access is closely associated with primary care; people with access to Medicaid are 70% are more likely to report having a steady and dependable place of care. 55% are likely to report as having a normal doctor.

In conclusion, therefore, the main purpose of ACA is to have fewer people without insurance plans mainly by increasing coverage through Medicaid and new Health Insurance Exchanges. The Supreme Court ruling effectively permits states to make decisions as to whether to implement the Medicaid expansion program. State policymakers appraise the health coverage, new costs incurred, probable savings, and political and economic repercussions of a decision to implement the Medicaid expansion. The overall conclusion is that, by implementing the Medicaid expansion coupled with other provisions of the ACA, states could considerably cut the number of uninsured. Overall state costs of executing the Medicaid expansion would be modest compared to non-ACA Medicaid expenditure and relative to upturns in federal finances, and the majority of the states are likely to see small net budget gains.