A Report On The Consumer, Insurance Providers, And Government

In 2010, the United States created The Affordable Care Act (ACA). The objective was to share the responsibility of costs between the government, individuals, and employers to provide affordable access to quality health insurance. “However, health coverage remains fragmented, with numerous private and public sources, as well as wide gaps in insured rates across the U.S. population.” (“United States: International Health Care System Profiles,” n.d.). Each individual state within the US, generally has control over private insurance.

For healthcare to be fair and permeable for every person, America’s leaders will have to identify the current issues dividing the population. This means removing prejudices and developing a plan that can be seen as universal. It should help to increase the types and availability of health insurance and give those not coverage the means to secure coverage. Passing a new healthcare bill that will establish a plan that is “option driven” will place the overall decision and type of coverage in the hands of the public. This will remove the stigmata off of leaders, doctors, and health maintenance organizations. But, the two major factors that will

To make it easier for every American to enroll in a plan, “the Federal government provides lower income taxpayers who do not receive insurance from employers or other sources and do not qualify for an exemption with a premium tax credit to subsidize the purchase of qualified health plans purchased through an Exchange.” Radically the individual mandate reflects the image of a program

In today’s day and age, American households can all agree that health insurance is not a luxury, but a necessity. Without it, costs of emergency room visits and prescription medicines can be financially devastating. However, in the past many families and individuals have taken the risk of not being insured due to the high cost of the insurance itself. To attempt to reform this unfair system, the Obama administration signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. The law, coined “Obamacare,” has received much opposition due to its expansion government programs and increase in spending. It brings to question how much the government should be involved in an area that for the majority of America’s history, has been

The provision I am choosing is the Requirement to buy Insurance and the costs . Everyone does need some type of affordable health care coverage and now a law has been implemented that requires individuals to buy some type of coverage. Health care coverage can be obtained through your employer or through an Insurance exchange that can be affordable for everyone however, if you choose not to buy health coverage or even cannot afford it you have to pay a penalty on your taxes.

Tolbert, Ebeler and Schwartz (2008) report general agreement that the growing problem of the uninsured is one that is of great public concern. There is a general agreement that the problem of the uninsured needs to be addressed but there is little to no consensus as to how best to expand coverage. A wide range of policies targeting every segment of the healthcare system has been suggested as potential strategies for broadening coverage. These strategies differ in terms of their scope. Some seek change in increments while others suggest total system redesign. Some would focus only on the uninsured while others would promote coverage for all Americans. They also offer different mechanisms for achieving coverage expansions.

The Affordable Care Act which is also known as Obamacare and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law on March 23, 2010 and it has not been without its share of problems, debates and controversies. One of the main points of contention with the PPACA is the individual mandate. This paper will look at the worldviews that are involved in the individual mandate, the worldviews of those that oppose the mandate, the roles and limits of the government’s side of the mandate issue and the conflicting views and ideas that have come about. The individual mandate “requires that most Americans obtain and maintain health insurance, or an exemption, each month or pay a tax penalty” . The whole purpose of creating PPACA was to “achieve near-universal coverage and to do so through shared responsibility among government, individuals, and employers” also to be able to “improve the fairness, quality, and affordability of health insurance coverage” and to be able to “improve health-care value, quality, and efficiency while reducing wasteful spending and making the health-care system more accountable to a diverse patient population” .Those were the top three aims that were pointed out in drawing up the policies for PPACA to develop what was hoped to be universal healthcare for the citizens of the United States. While the PPACA does have its benefits, such as it would cover pre-existing conditions where most private insurances do not do, more people have the

As the implementation of The Affordable Care Act (ACA) nears, news media is featuring a large number of individuals whose health insurance coverage is being cancelled. The current administration claims that their objective is for everyone to have health insurance, but there is a gap between their new legislation and the results. American consumers are falling in the gap between private insurance plans that are too expensive, and the poorly developed government system. Despite claims from the Obama administration, the Affordable Care Act limits the American public’s choice of private health insurance plans.

One of this health care’s programs objective is to limit the number of uninsured (Shi & Singh, 2015). This controversial healthcare plan incorporates a privately funded insurance which is paid for through employment and solely by the patient and a publicly funded insurance by the government. Medicare is provided for senior citizens 65 and older, and Medicaid is provided for low income citizens. The federal government and state government both partake in the funding of Medicaid. Although insurance is provided to the low income through Medicaid, the United States continues to suffer from cost escalation spending 17.1 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2013, a 50 percent more than the second nation (Commonwealth, n.d.) The high cost and limited coverage continues to spark up the conversation for a

Public policy, such as subsidies in the form of tax credits for the purchase of health plans through the exchanges, have been in existence since the inception of the ACA, but one could contend that this falls short on many fronts. Subsidy thresholds and amounts are simply too low and premium costs too high for many middle-income earners to make ends meet. In some cases people would rather risk going without insurance and pay the penalty, than pay for a plan they can’t afford to use anyway (Bernard,

For the first time in history, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to simply tell a person “no”. They will be required to offer coverage and accommodate regardless of a person’s health status, and they will not be able to jack up rates or drop any one from coverage when the main person in the insurance packet gets sick.

The law prohibits insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of an individual’s pre-existing conditions. In the individual and small group market, the law prohibits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to gender or health status (“Medicaid expansion”). The law makes it so that health care policies have to cover screening, treatments, and follow up care for cancer. Medicaid has to cover yearly check-ups which will benefit cancer patients by talking about cancer prevention. Seniors don’t need to pay high cost for prescription drugs anymore. Coverage is now available for people that participate in clinical trials. Insurance companies can’t set yearly or lifetime dollar limits on how much they pay for patient care. Now, cancer patients can receive the care they need no matter what the cost is. Health care policies can’t charge people with illnesses any more than people that are healthy.

U.S. health care reform is currently one of the most heavily discussed topics in health discourse and politics. After former President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care reform in the mid-1990s, the Bush administration showed no serious efforts at achieving universal health coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans. With Barack Obama as the current U.S. President, health care reform is once again a top priority. President Obama has made a promise to “provide affordable, comprehensive, and portable health coverage for all Americans…” by the end of his first term (Barackobama.com). The heated debate between the two major political parties over health care reform revolves around how to pay for it and more importantly, whether it

The most important stakeholder in the healthcare policymaking is probably the patient. In Massachusetts, the Act provided “nearly universal health insurance coverage” (case study). In 2009 the

Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.