Health Care Access

This is an area where public opinion and public policy match in that they both heavily favor regressive taxation (Brown et al., 2014). Tausanovitch and Warshaw (2013) have developed a means of understanding political preference in comparison with public opinion and public policy to determine whether a government is best serving the desires of its people. This type of tool would be very useful for the state of Texas to use to determine whether the government is serving the desires of its constituents. But, just because public opinion and public policy line up doesn’t mean that the interests of citizens are best served because some groups may still be left out and those groups may have more needs than others. Texas’ current operational stance of “pay-as-you-go” makes for a very tight budget where the government cannot always afford to spend money on things the citizens of Texas may need. For instance, Texas operates its roads with the same “pay-as-you-go” mentality by opting for toll roads (Brown et al., 2014). Toll roads receive some government funding through state issued bonds and the collection of tolls after completion. This system is hardly fair for the citizens who do not use the toll roads but still must subsidize them through taxpayer dollars when the toll revenue does not meet the projected earnings. There are also many more citizens in Texas who live below the poverty line, 18.4% for Texas in comparison to 15.1% for the entire United States (Brown et al., 2014). With a larger proportion of citizens in poverty the burden to the state becomes greater, especially when funding remains low (Insert citation). Texas is just hurting its citizens by not being able to provide as much support and assistance to them as possible. Texas was given the opportunity, along with every other state in the union, to expand its offering of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. A sample of public opinion was obtained

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.

By not expanding Medicaid, Texas is leaving millions of poor Americans worse off. The state houses the most uninsured citizens in the nation with

Close to half of each dollar spent on healthcare is inefficiently used both at a clinical and administrative level. Three other areas that funds are not appropriately in are insurer overhead and profit and over priced pharmaceuticals. Projected figures for the first year estimate that just in administrative costs alone the citizenry should see approximately twenty billion dollars worth of savings in the first year. Another area that will put approximately $5.2 billion dollars back into the budget will be that this program will allow the state purchasing power for mass quantity pharmaceuticals and durable equipment. Finally by increasing the emphasis on preventative care and making a primary care physician available to all will add another $3.4 billion. Last but definitely not least, it is estimated that this bill will dramatically reduce fraud approximately $800 billion dollars in healthcare spending. Total savings for the first year are projected to be approximately $29 billion dollars. The projected plan is to use this money for the purpose of providing healthcare to the populous that is currently without health insurance. With these savings and more efficient use of funds all residents will have comprehensive healthcare that at this point was leaving twelve million without it as well as not increase spending (Amaro

Rick Perry told Fox news on July 8th, 2012 that Texas wouldn’t be a part of “socializing healthcare,’’ and the only solution to fixing Texas healthcare is to have the Federal Government block grant the state funding to fix the healthcare options instead of giving a ‘’one size fits all, cookie cutter’’ solution (News, 2012). Even state Medicaid Chief, Billy Millwee supports Perry. In an interview to The Texas Tribune he calls Medicaid,

In Texas, the uninsured rate dropped from 37 percent to 27 percent due to many adults meeting the low poverty criteria to become insured. The adults that were eligible for the Medicaid program were adults who were eligible for a tax credit to buy the coverage on the federal health insurance programs. Texas decision not to expand Medicaid also made it hard for low income families to receive health care and pay for health medications. According to the study and observations of other states who have expanded Medicaid, it is proven that many low-income adults have less trouble paying for and obtaining health care while on the Medicaid program. In states with the Medicaid program in full effect compared to Texas where there is no expansion on Medicaid, many Americans are struggling with household responsibilities and finances due to having to pay for the private insurance and receive the health care that is needed for their condition.

Any decision naturally means there must be at least two options from which to choose. The decisions made concerning the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are certainly no exception. Certainly politics enters into the mix, as does associated costs, availability of medical care, quality of care and numerous other factors. While the idea medical care for all seems quite simple on the surface, the devil is in the details. My father, Dudley Plaisance, worked in healthcare for many years, even co-founding a company whose role was to find sources of funding for patients without resources to pay medical

The purpose of the bill is to reduce state Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotments annually from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2020. The reduction will occur “at the same time as the Marketplace and Medicaid provide increased coverage options that will reduce uncompensated care levels for hospitals. State Medicaid programs make DSH payments to qualifying hospitals that serve a large number of low-income individuals.”

Texas has the largest uninsured population with an estimated 6.2 million uninsured citizens within its stateliness, approximately a quarter of the statewide population (Rapoport, 2012). In 2012, then governor, Rick Perry decided that Texas would not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This decision led to much debate over whether or not Perry made the right decision to leave upwards of a million Texans, who did not receive insurance subsidies and did not qualify for Medicaid, uninsured. These Texans fell under what many politicians refer to as the “coverage gap.” Texas decided not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act because of the effects it would have on hospitals, financial reasons, and increased number of

Ironically, Texas has the highest number of uninsured citizens in the nation, 6.2 million to be exact. The majority of these citizens are children. According to Goodwyn (2013), “by Texas refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion, which is part of the ACA, the state will leave on the table an estimated 100 billion dollars over the next decade. It is sad to know many citizens in this state will be denied health care by those who already have the best insurance and will never have to worry about being uninsured. In addition, the Texas politicians fail to recognize the need for health care for neither its most vulnerable citizens nor the burden on the Emergency room as well as the rise in healthcare premiums for citizens who maintain health insurance. Landers (2013) reports, “whether they have a good income or a lower one, Texas lag behind much of the nation in access to and quality health care.” States who fail to expand Medicaid will see their funds distributed to states on board with expanding Medicaid.

Bill Haslam, the Tennessee state governor, announced that the state of Tennessee would accept the Medicaid expansion offer. The Medicaid expansion expands Medicaid eligibility to the region’s underserved populations living near or below the poverty line. The Medicaid expansion offer looked to be a major win for the state; however, others disagreed with this idea. Some of Tennessee’s lawmakers decided to deny the federal government’s Medicaid offer, even though many others wanted the offer to be accepted. The deal’s breakdown might be the result of “squabbling along party lines” which is a common theme at all levels of government. Although the deal was denied, it is still possible that the bill could still be passed with the help of the governor. The likelihood of Tennessee reviving its Medicaid expansion is a difficult one considering the state would have to fight. The Medicaid expansion could offer the state low-income citizens medical insurance, the state would come out of the deal with a net financial gain, and the state hospitals would come out on top.

If Texas expands Medicaid coverage, the largest number of newly eligible Texas would be adults without children. Currently, these individuals are not covered under Medicaid. In addition, parents who have incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL), up from 12% previously. With a 90% federal reimbursement rate going forward, for every $10 of health care services obtained under the program, the State pays $1 and the federal funds pay the other $9. It is estimated that the State would contribute about 15.6 billion, while the federal

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.

“We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on. And we will do it this year.” The preceding is a powerful statement from the newly elected President Barak Obama. One of the main aspects of both political campaigns was health care reform. The above quote shows passion and encouragement, but the quotes about health care do not end there. Georgian republican gubernatorial candidate and health care policy maker John Oxendine expressed: “Their proposal would virtually devastate the private healthcare sector in this country along with competition and patient choice, by replacing it with bureaucratic planning and government control. The result of this plan and its one trillion

Changes in access to health care across different populations are the chief reason for current disparities in health care provision. These changes occur for several reasons, and some of the main factors that contribute to the problem in the United States are: Lack of health insurance – Several racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and other minority groups lack adequate health insurance coverage in comparison with people who can afford healthcare insurance. The majority of these individuals are likely to put off health care or go without the necessary healthcare and medication that is needed. Lack of financial resources – Lack of accessibility to funding is a barrier to health care for a lot of people living in the United States