A Fighting Chance And The Pursuit Of Healthiness

In the United States, healthcare has been one of the most controversial issue. Everyone needs to see a doctor when they don’t feel well or for routine check-ups. However, the reality is that not everyone could afford to see a doctor regularly to prevent serious illness. As a result, many people have died due to finding out their illness a bit too late because they have waited until the last minute to see a doctor and it was too late for the doctor to do anything about it. The situation could have been different if they were not lacking healthcare coverage. The government has stepped in to fix the issue but the problem persists due to the complexity of the healthcare system and its involvement with the political system. The Democratic and Republican

The concept of providing basic healthcare services to individuals in need has undergone an agonizing transition, from a luxury once only afforded by the affluent to a basic human right granted to citizens of every economic station, and the recently enacted Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to finalize this ethical evolution. Reflecting perhaps the bitter political enmity currently consuming the nation's once cherished democratic process, Republican legislatures in states throughout the union have bristled at the ACA's primary provisions, threatening all manner of procedural protestation as they attempt to delay and derail the bill's eventual implementation. One of the most intriguing aspects of the sprawling, thousand page law, however, has been the stipulation that individual states will be given a choice to either accept federal funding to expand their statewide Medicaid roster, or to forfeit all federal funding for that program in perpetuity. The role of government in monitoring and regulating the healthcare industry has been long debated, and the bitterly contested passage of President Obama's ACA, a law aimed at revising the country's health insurance system through the creating of a federal health insurance exchange to facilitate increased competition among insurers, has rekindled the debate over who holds the ultimate responsibility for regulating the care provided by hospitals, community clinics, and private practices.

On March 23, 2010, the Affordable care act also known as “obamacare” was signed into law by president Barrack Obama. Only gay marriage legislations and gun laws have elicited more public response than the affordable care act. Both opponents and proponents have presented constructive arguments of the perceived failures and strengths of the act. Owing to the intense debate surrounding the act, very few people understand that the act only came into full implementation in 2014. The raving reviews and critiques of the debate have bordered on myths and perception influenced by political alignments. Pertinent questions have been asked about the affordable care act. There have been conflicting accounts on the role of the affordable care act in regulating the health insurance industry. Concerns have been raised on why patients are paying higher out of pocket expenses yet the affordable care act was meant to introduce checks and balance in healthcare provisions. This paper therefore seeks to deeply explore the affordable care act by researching on these questions. The paper will also demonstrate perspectives on the good and the bad that comes from the affordable care act. Lastly, the paper will analyze healthcare situation in New York City with statistics showing that healthcare services are becoming more expensive in the city even after the full implementation of the affordable care act.

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

Before change can be made, a problem must be recognized. Progressive politicians, health care executives, and activists continuously shed light on the dysfunctions within today’s health care system.

The United States of America has a system of checks and balances put in place in our government to insure no one part of the government has too much power. There is the legislative, executive, and judicial branch that all play apart in making and upholding the statues of this great nation (Shi & Singh, 2013). One type of statute that they pass is considered a health policy. Health policy can be anywhere from ensuring the quality of air to funding for research and development (Shi & Singh, 2013). The issue that occurs with these various health policy statutes is that there are special interest groups, which try to influence the making, passing, or killing of the proposed health policy (Shi & Singh, 2013). Special interest groups are associations

“If Obamacare is so wonderful, why is it that its loudest advocates don 't want to be subject to it,” stated Senator Ted Cruz. As financial and social hardships began to become apparent in the United States, one major problem facing the citizens and governing body is Health Care for all. Socialized medicine is a health care system where the government funds and runs health care facilities, employs the health care professionals, and pays for all health care amenities. This idea of giving high quality care to citizens previously unable to afford healthcare has caused problems in the United States, and this idea of “socialized medicine” has proven to create hardships in other countries in the past. Obamacare has introduced socialized medicine in the United States, which has caused negative effects both financially and ethically.

“If Obamacare is so wonderful, why is it that its loudest advocates don 't want to be subject to it,” stated Senator Ted Cruz. As financial and social hardships began to become apparent in the United States, one major problem facing the citizens and governing body is Health Care for all. Socialized medicine is a health care system where the government funds and runs health care facilities and employs the health care professionals, also paying for all health care amenities. This idea of giving high quality care to citizens previously unable to afford healthcare has caused problems in the United States, and this idea of “socialized medicine” has proven to create hardships in other countries in the past. Obamacare has introduced socialized medicine in the United States which has caused negative effects both financially and ethically.

These issues of concern and health care reform would be a real good argument for pluralist and their views of the structure of government in America. This is a good example of “who ever makes the best argument wins”. Although the finals of this reform have not yet been ironed-out, it seems like the winners will be working class Americans and that is not common in American politics. That no matter what argument, these large institutions are making they will have to find a way to conform to the decisions made by government. In this particular case the government is listening to everyone. These working class women have the Institute Of Medicine and the Department of Health and Human Services advocating on their behalf. In this instance the large population of individual voters are the ones holding the power over these larger, richer entities like insurance companies and religious affiliated institutions and universities. The states are involved in protecting the maintenance of order throughout society by being allowed to stipulate who does what. The power is not being held by those with economic stability like the social class perspective or the nature of leadership is not being held by the elites as stated in the elite managerial approach of government. Economic

The act according to Obama at the signing was “the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care” (Rogers, 2014). Many Americans have gained from the PPACA but there are also those who have lost to the reform. While the intent of the act was made for the better of Americans health, Republicans deem Obamacare to be a progressing disaster and seek to demolish the law. The conception that Obamacare is beneficial to Americans has created a debate between the political parties. Different groups and individuals have taken the law and have broken down their interpretation of its true intentions. After 75 years of an unsuccessful health system some find it hard to believe that the PPACA will be effective in the long run. The many reasons range from the PPACA being categorized as socialism, communism, capitalism and/or corporatism. Through writers Catherin Evans, Gus Voss and conservative writer David Horowitz we are given insight and facts to the many questions that have derived with the passing of PPACA. The PPACA has been portrayed as a government program to help all Americans have health benefits and affordable health; but this government aid also questions how beneficial is the program and is it another approach of control.

Across history, interest group and ideological oppositions have created barriers to successfully passing health reform legislation in the United States. While the problem emerged in the early 1900s with the decline in social and political conditions, some would argue that the issues initiated during the progressive era of 1915-1920, or shortly after. Either way, it was not until the Great Depression that the American Medical Association (AMA) rejected the notion of doctors providing free care to the poor as a means to reject “socialized medicine.” AMA’s stance on the provision of health care, established them as one of the leading organizations opposing National Insurance.

The proposed health care reform bill attempts to change issues of public policy and health care management for the poor and uninsured. Many leaders from the Democratic Party are actively engaging in policy-making to fix what Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) calls a “‘dysfunctional’ health care system” (2009). Currently, the U.S. health care system denies people with pre-existing conditions from receiving care. Another problem with the system is that the health insurance that some employers offer may be so expensive that their employees cannot afford it. Any cuts in Medicaid may mean that physicians have fewer incentives to provide adequate care for the poor. These are some of the many problems that the Affordable Health Choices Act attempts to address. Fiscally conservative political and business groups oppose this measure because they believe that any changes in public policy and health care management might affect them negatively.

The Democratic Party claims that the Affordable Health Care Act will “eliminate all discrimination for pre-existing conditions, start the process of expanding health insurance coverage for an additional 32 million Americans, and provide the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history” (Democrats.org). According to Republicans, this act adversely affects relationships between doctors and their patients, diminishes competition among insurance providers, and harms the value of the care (GOP). Thus, the Affordable Health Care Act is a controversial topic among the

Who resists the call for change? Who defends the status quo? Doctors are among the most highly paid professionals in our society. The current system benefits them by limiting the education and licensing of doctors, thus creating low supply in the face of increasingly high demand. Insurance companies, with the input of physicians, determine the rate of reimbursement for physician services. Health care corporations continue to be good investments, despite the recession. The pejorative term “socialized medicine”, first coined by a “free market” focus group opposing President Truman’s attempt to create a government sponsored health care system in the 1940’s, has successfully forestalled change by frightening the public with images of inept and oppressive governmental interference in health care. The current system, unjust, inadequate and expensive, continues to profit the few ( doctors, pharmaceutical corporations, hospital corporations, HMO’s politicians) to the detriment of all. This is a rank issue. Who profits the most resists change the most, and uses rank to influence and obstruct. The medical-industrial-congressional complex, which comprises-----of our gross domestic product, overtly and covertly, opposes change which threatens their interests (“profits”) opposes health care reform and justice. They have the money, the access to influence at the highest levels of government, and they have used a profit seeking media effectively to influence citizens to preserve the status

The Michael Moore movie pointed to a myriad of issues relating to the American healthcare system that are both startling and interesting. The movie was produced before the Obama Administration signed the Affordable Care Act into law, but Sicko reports that nearly 50 million Americans do not have health insurance. About 18,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. The system is clearly broken, and politics seems to have been the reason that insurance companies keep a strangle hold on consumers. For example, Sicko reports that there are nearly four times as many lobbyists in Washington D.C. pushing for their clients' agenda as there are members of Congress.