Affordable Health Care Cases

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.

What started out as a much needed revision of the Health Care System has turned into a total overhaul which was not passed with bipartisan agreement. This division is reflected not only in the government, but among the people of the United States as well. Polls are taken daily and most of them show that the vast majority of Americans do not want the Health Care Bill. Due to the larger part of America not wanting this bill and finding the bill itself unconstitutional, many states have now filed a lawsuit against the federal government. More than a dozen states that have filed suit against the government believe that this bill violates the Constitution and many more states are considering joining the lawsuits. Some of these contend that the Health Care Bill infringes upon the Tenth Amendment. This amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people"(Dethrick 1). This amendment declares that the states have the ability to implement their own decisions despite what the federal government says. This lawsuit will prove to be a long and costly battle. Regardless of the results of this litigation, undoubtedly, the country will remain divided on this issue for years to come.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, and on June 28, 2012 the Supreme Court decided to uphold the law.¹ Some of the most notable features that the ACA will provide for individuals are access to healthcare for everyone, new consumer protections such as pre-existing condition coverage, free preventative care, protection against healthcare fraud, small business tax credits, as well as many other features.¹

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will only hasten changes that were on the horizon for pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries new there was going to be some type of healthcare reform so they began to take the necessary precautions to prepare. There are vital provisions in the ACA related to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry affecting Medicare and Medicaid. Legislation in the ACA will provide provision to reduce cost for brand name prescriptions (Rx); this will reduce drug cost for patients, but increase rebates and discounts for pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms, therefore, imposing cost to the firms. The pharmaceutical and biotech industry was instrumental

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has survived both constitutional and statutory challenges which reached the United States Supreme Court. But opponents of the law are far from defeated. A large number of cases are still pending throughout the country.

One of the topics we have discussed, and read about in this course is the role that the State Governments have in the expansion of their Medicaid program. It’s a tough decision, but it seems to have caught the eye of most Americans. Many states are not sure if they should expand their programs, with the help of the Federal Governments. It’s been said that 17 states have already outright rejected two major parts of this act (Branham 2013, 10). The real question now is will expanding Medicaid help give everyone insurance benefits, so they can stay healthy? That is the question that Governors, and Legislatures are asking themselves when it comes to saying thanks, or no thanks, to the

The chosen policy is the Health Insurance for Former Foster Youth Act (S.1797, 2017). This proposed law at the federal level is intended to secure access to health care for youth who have reached a certain age at which they are no longer eligible for foster care resulting in not having health insurance coverage (S.1797, 2017).

Flipping the script, I will now discuss my new social contract between the citizenry and the state. I certainly believe that the state should have some responsibility to help with health care costs; however, I also think citizens should take responsibility for themselves as well. For example; people who are employed should pay their share of the premium cost based on the amount they make per year, so if one employee brings home more than another, they should pay a higher share of the amount of their premium. Moreover, an employee making minimum wage should have some help from the state to pay part of their premium cost. Also, each individual’s last employer should continue to provide them with their same insurance plan until they find new employment. As far as State health insurance coverage such as the Medicaid and Medicare programs, they should continue to provide health coverage to the underprivileged and the elderly.

Issue: 4.6 million Texans are currently uninsured without access to affordable healthcare due to the state’s refusal to expand Medicaid or provide additional public health coverage options. Section 1115 of the Social Security Act gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to approve states’ experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects that promote the objectives of the Medicaid and CHIP programs.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 allowed for comprehensive health insurance reform that shifted the imperative for care delivery and reimbursement from a volume to a value-based approach. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) under CMS has been at the forefront of developing and testing innovative payment models that would support the premise of expanding access to beneficiaries and achieving better quality outcomes while lowering exorbitant spending. One such model, named the Independence at Home (IAH) Demonstration, was deployed through ACA section 3024, with the aim of transforming the way primary care is delivered. This demonstration project builds on the success of the Veteran’s Administration Home-Based

The United States of America is a country that signifies freedom, liberty, and justice for all, but unfortunately over years our government has degraded this country and what it stands for. The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obama Care and Affordable Care Act, force all Americans to have health insurance or they will be assessed a penalty fine which some view as an illegal tax. It was the view point which was the basis of a case that went before the Supreme Court arguing against Obama Care. Unfortunately for some the ruling was against the “tax” based suit. The ACA has been a means by which to set boundaries and take control of us citizens by controlling their choices for their own health care. In my opinion Obama Care contradicts our constitution and everything that our service men and women have fought for to make this country great: freedom of choice. Since this bill has been passed the cost of health insurance and premiums have more than doubled. For some, sufficient health care has diminished; work hours have been cut (by many small businesses to save them from the financial burden of supplying government health insurance) leaving many in need of work, and have increased the amount of debt this country is in by trillions. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also known as Obama Care will continue to suppress the quality of our health care system in the United States if it remains a law. It is our duty as US Citizens to get the

The health care system in the United States is one of the greatest concerns facing Americans today and is an issue both moral and economic in nature. Some think the system should stay, for all intents and purposes, the same. They believe that the right to healthcare is a stepping stone toward socialism, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain health care. These are usually the more ideologically conservative citizens and politicians who believe that medicine should remain a free enterprise, not to be constrained by government interference. Then there are those who believe that healthcare is a right, and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure it is available to all citizens, not just those who can afford

Its goal is to control healthcare costs and ensure that every citizen owns health insurance promoting a safer society and smarter choices. Tens of millions of uninsured people have access to affordable, high-quality health insurance through Medicaid expansion, their employers, and the Health Insurance Marketplace. Furthermore, over half of uninsured Americans can get free or low cost health insurance, and some can get help on out-of-pocket costs using their state’s Health Insurance Marketplace. Although it would be smarter if this power was given to each of the states, and advocate competition between different healthcare companies, the premise is still very

The ACA is structured in line with co-operative federalism because the funding of the ACA rests upon the national government but the implementation of the programs under ACA is left with the states to execute. The two proposals differ in terms of models of federalism embodied in the current Medicaid and ACA program because the Sander’s proposal advocates a single player concept whereby the national government is solely responsible for the creation and implementation of healthcare policies of America thereby expanding federal power while the Graham-Cassidy proposal limits government power in healthcare and transfer such power to the individual states to use at their discretion which in turn limits federal

The health care has been a topic for endless debates for a long time in the United States. The government has tried many different ways and programs to improve provision of medical service for its people. Medicaid was one of these programs. Medicaid is a program that funds primary and acute medical services and a variety of other services. The program is financed by the federal government and the states. It is a mutual collaboration of two levels of the government to help with their health care coverage. The idea is incredible, the states and the federal government share responsibility and help people. However, the implementation of this idea is not on the top level. The most important part of the implementation is a distribution of money. The government developed a mechanism and criteria of how money goes to the states but this system is far from perfection. The inefficient federal funding of the states for Medicaid is the problem that has to be solved.