In-State Health Insurance Vs Federal 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.

Despite reservations amongst Republicans, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act on March 23, 2010. This law was set to give coverage to 32 million uninsured citizens, introduces subsides so that middle and lower income families can more easily purchase insurance and stops insurers from refusing health coverage to people with preexistent illnesses (Clemmitt, 2010). Evaluating this law five years after it’s signing, the percentage of U.S. adults without insurance dropped 4.5 percent to 11.9 percent in early 2015. Attitudes towards the law have improved with an increasing number of people seeing its benefits over time and although there have been issues with the law, the rate of the growth of health care spending has actually decreased, with a 2013 rate of only 3.6 percent (Vaida, 2015). This current plan isn’t perfect and America still sees its civilization with countless uninsured individuals but it is a step in the right direction. Our nation won’t see a working universal health coverage system until a majority is on the same page regarding the issue and realize idealized results. The quickest way for America to come to this is for states to model other nations and develop their own individual plans so that our society can discover the most efficient option. It may be a single payer system or a government aided pluralistic system (Tanne, 2007), but experimenting with what is successful and what has potential to work is key to finding America’s perfect health-coverage fit and improving our efficiency of spending towards it (Clemmitt,

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.

Texas, which currently has a large uninsured population and limited Medicaid eligibility, forfeits billions of dollars from the federal government every year by not expanding its Medicaid program as implemented in the Affordable Care Act. In contrast, Medicaid expansion could benefit the state exponentially and give its citizens the fullest potential of what this country offers. A substantial amount of federal funding that could increase uninsured coverage, improve healthcare costs, and provide economic stimulus is left on the table. Additionally, the nation benefits when each state participates, contributing to the success of the healthcare reform.

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

Due to the success of Kentucky’s affordable healthcare system, I believe that Kentucky should be the in charge of the health insurance reform. The federal government should appoint the state of Kentucky to design a universal system for all of the states. They will to keep up with the high demands as the population continues to grow. Kentucky will need to increase their application turnover rate and improve their services and products that are provided to the public. Kentucky should develop a new level of automated systems that can make the application more efficient when applicants are applying and renewing their health insurance. It was wise to reuse an old system. Although Kentucky ‘s healthcare system was successful, how will they continue to protect the

The subject of insurance and how heavily the government can mandate it or not mandate it is a constant struggle in politics. There is always the question of “what kind of relationship should the government have with its people and what role should it play with businesses?” Currently, a popular subject is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and it is challenging the boundaries by requiring people to have health insurance and requiring businesses to offer health insurance to everyone and anyone. Mandating insurance is a hot button subject in other areas too that we will discuss like auto insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, and professional malpractice insurance.

Dr. Donald A. Barr in Introduction to US Health Policy discusses the different methods in which states attempt to expand health care coverage throughout his book. In chapter eight, The Uninsured, Barr focusses on one such successful expansion. Massachusetts increases the number of people insured in their state through individual mandate, a term used to describe when a government requires individuals to obtain health care (240). After the success of Massachusetts, the federal government attempted a similar system through a policy called the Affordable Care Act (ACA). How does the ACA compare to the Massachusetts’s policy? Though the ACA was made to reflect the Massachusetts’s individual mandate policy, they also have some key differences.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from being introduced in 2010 has not been well received by the public. Two main consequences are economic issues, and many states rejecting the act. Economic issues are relevant because it is assumed that insurance premiums are increased, rising cost increases during a recession, mandated benefits and other costs will be passed on to consumers and billions of dollars will be taken from seniors Medicare benefits. In addition, a requirement of the act is that insurance companies spend at least 50-80 percent of premium dollars on medical care, which will lead to less consumer choice and higher prices. Many states are choosing to reject the act

In 2010 the American government passed new health care legislation, called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), in order to reform the United States health care system. This health care reform opens the door for some Americans who have never been eligible for affordable health care insurance to obtain it beginning in 2014 (Sparer, 2011). All the states will enact this legislation but some will limit the provision provided to their citizens (Kaiser Commission, 2013). North Carolina is one of the states that have chosen not to enact all of the ACA’s provisions (Kaiser Commission, 2013). In this paper, I will look at health care

The following analysis will explore the current health insurance problem under the ACA. It will discuss the proposed policy of Medicaid Expansion and the impact of States not cooperating with the implementation of such provision. Moreover, a recommendation on strategies to alleviate the health

In the article, This Is What Happens When Your State Blocks The Medicaid Expansion Jonathan Cohn discusses the impact that the Affordable Care Act has had on the percentage of people that have health insurance in the United States. Cohn goes in depth about what the Affordable Care Act is and why it has been so beneficial to the states that have adopted it, most specifically the expansion of Medicaid. Cohn also addresses the loophole that allows states to opt out of the federal program due to a Supreme Court ruling in 2012 that allows states to block the Medicaid expansion. The new Medicaid expansion has helped lots of Americans get access to health insurance that they would not have had access to otherwise, but some states are not taking

In Tennessee alone, we are once again facing an obstacle under the umbrella of healthcare coverage. In 2017, 3 regions in the state of Tennessee will lose coverage from BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, 2016). It will leave 100,000 individuals looking for coverage through other marketplace plan providers. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee stated that they had to pull out of Obamacare in these three regions due to profit losses over the last 3 years (BCBST, 2016). It may seem simple enough to others that these individuals just go get another plan from someone else. We must first consider affordability. Will Cigna and Humana offer plans that are similar to the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee plans? Will consumers have nearly the same or the same benefits as before? There are many different changes that may occur by simply changing insurance plans. The consumers may not be able to have the same providers. They may not have the same medication coverage as before. The deductible could change and make the policy invaluable to the individual based on their needs. Obtaining coverage has been an ongoing uphill battle for some. Our state and federal legislators all share different views on healthcare issues. The Healthcare Reform Act of 2010 brought

While researching the state of Colorado for different types of healthcare policies, the most talked about policy was all centered around the State lead Connect for Health Colorado. Colorado’s path to building this insurance marketplace started years before the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In 2006 the General Assembly passed the Senate Bill 06-208 which created the Blue Ribbon Commission for health care reform. The goal of the marketplace was to assist individuals and smaller employers to find insurance options offered through the state. There were only a few minor changes made in Colorado prior to the passing of the ACA.

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.