Health Care Law Vs. Sebelius Case

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.

Simultaneously, health and healthcare policy plays a tremendous role in the quality of life of every American. Likewise, by the government constantly interceding, health and healthcare is significantly influenced by the political climate and undertakings of administration; therefore creating a conflictual split between republicans and democrats. Health care is regarded as a product rather than a human right shaped by policymaking. Policies establish healthcare service stipulations, which are rooted in local, state, and federal statutes combined with landmark court decisions. Not only does policy focus on healthcare services; but, it also places a substantial emphasis on cost-efficiency and equality.

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.

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.

The Affordable Care Act that is commonly known as the Obamacare can be explained as healthcare declaration that was enacted by the Federal government on 23rd March 2010. The main objective of the Act was to reform the US health systems by offering and bettering access to quality and affordable health care, health insurance, and by offering American citizens with more rights and safeguards by minimizing healthcare expenses for both the government as well as the American residents. Moreover, it can also be pointed out that the Act also aimed extending private and public insurance coverage while also regulating the insurance sector. Nevertheless, since enactment of the Act, the Act has been heaving criticized by some quarters to the extent that some political leaders in the USA have expressed their views on repealing the Act (Everett and Dawsey, 2017). Nevertheless, it can also be pointed out that there are those who strongly support the Act and give different reasons to explain the reasons why they are in support of the Act. This essay focuses on the topic of Obamacare and discusses in detail the reasons why the Act should be ammended.

The affordable care act (ACA) or the Obama health care reform has been a topic of great concern in today’s health care. In March 23rd 2010 President Obama signed the health care legistration (Obama Care) into law. The passage of the law affected different many issues in the lives of Americans. Socially, it was a great law due to the facts that individuals that cannot afford health care would have access to health care regardless of preexisting conditions and young adults benefits in staying longer under their parents insurance until age 26. Hence, economically, depending on the side of the table the individual chooses (republican or Democrat) there will be an increase in national debt because more people will be eligible for Medicaid (The National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, 2012). According to Root (2012) the so-called Obama health care reform will be a tax imposed on the citizens of the United States, because it obliges people to actually buy insurance provided by the government, which is in a big violation of the commerce clause or the individual mandate threatens the foundation of contract law. American contract law rest on the principle of mutual assent. For example, if I hold a gun to your head and force you to sign a contract, no court of law will honor that document since I coerced you into signing it. Mutual assent must be present in order for a contract to be valid and binding (Markham, 2002).

(2001). The Formulation of Health Policy by the Three Branches of Government. Social Policy and Policymaking by the Branches of Government and the Public-at-Large. doi:10.7312/stei11682-014

On June 28, 2012, The Supreme Court ruled the Federal Government does not have the constitutional right to sanction an individual to buy health insurance, but declared that the states do have the right to place a tax on citizens that do not carry insurance. This ruling is in response to President Obama’s Patient Protection and Healthcare Act of 2010. Passed on March 23, 2010, President Obama’s Reform Act mandates Texas, as well as the nation, to provide Medicaid funding to all individuals that are uninsured by 2014. As well as expanding Medicaid, it will provide exchanges, which are pools of insurance companies a previously uninsured person can pick

In the view of Lischko & Waldman (2013), on the way to understand the states battle to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on March twenty third twenty ten, USA president Obama ratified the Public Law 111-148 also acknowledged as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”). This law was good news to Americans who were served with lengthy debates about balance of federal with states government in the making of policies to be used domestically. The consequent enactment

The Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law in March 2010 and it has not been without its share of problems, debates and controversies. One of the main points of the debates and controversies with the PPACA has been the legality of the individual mandate. 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” and to be able to “improve the fairness, quality, and affordability of health insurance coverage” also 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 goals that were the foundation when drawing up the policies for The Affordable Care Act to develop what was hoped to be universal healthcare system for the citizens of the United States. While The Affordable Care Act does have its benefits, such as it would cover pre-existing conditions where most private insurances do not do, more people have the ability to get what they call affordable medical insurance, costs of prescriptions are lower and it even offers tax credits for those that purchase the insurance but it also

In recent years, health care has been a huge topic in public debates, legislations, and even in deciding who will become the next president. There have been many acts, legislations, and debates on what the country has to do in regards to health care. According to University of Phoenix Read Me First HCS/235 (n.d.), “How health care is financed influences access to health care, how health care is delivered, the quality of health care provided, and its cost”.

The Government is a very important body as a stake in the health-care sector. Policies, Acts, and reforms are enacted and passed by the Government for adequate and better healthcare to meet the needs of its people. Insurance policies are one of the many ways that most States use to provide affordable and quality health care to every citizen. Although some of the laws may not have had a great impact towards the health-care, many have improved the services offered to the health-care consumer (Schmeer, 2016). Moreover, the government is also responsible for developing up policies which help in regulating the health

On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.

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

Apart from the Affordable Care Act, there has been increased government and court involvement in the determination of how healthcare issues are run, like the recent denial of the nonprofit tax exemption status to some hospitals in Chicago (Bergen 2). These hospitals, which include the Northwestern Memorial Hospital and the Prentice Women’s Hospital, are known to provide important healthcare services to patients who cannot afford to pay the expensive costs in private hospitals (Bergen 2). These unfavorable healthcare policies among others are bound to be more frequent and the resultant problems may promote the emergence of other bigger ones unless immediate action is taken.