Leadership Issues in the Criminal Justice System

Health care has been a controversial topic of discussion for all Americans since it was put in effect many years ago. Currently the biggest debate of Healthcare up to date is Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is a Health care Reform that is a governmental attempt to make basic health care easily obtainable. However, there are no benefits without cost in situations like this, and upon that are different viewpoints on the subject thus creating political debates discussing if it is ethically correct. The overall goal that Obamacare hopes to accomplish is that through specific changes through insurance companies, industry standards, and patient guarantees a healthier America will be produced. Obamacare has its ups and downs for both the generally agreeing democratic viewpoints and the opposing republican side. Both viewpoints have their own beliefs about how Health care works and Obamacare is somewhat in between on this. Most arguments on Obamacare deal with Medicaid being constitutional and if Obamacare truly reduces the total cost of health care for individuals and in the government.

The criminal justice system is one of the most important components in the public service system. Since it is a system that citizens encounter daily it would be most beneficial for those who are employed to behave as ethical leaders. Leadership skills and ethical behavior are both parts of the duties of any officer serving the law. Often employees are placed in quick decision situations that can have fatal outcomes if not handled properly. By ensuring that all officers of the law have a set of functioning ethical leadership skills can not only develop a well-rounded individual, but also builds the relationship between the community they serve to protect. The police and other officers of the law have great discretion and power over an individual which makes having responsible, ethically behaving persons on the front lines even more important. With the right training and education, ethical officers can set the bar and improve the quality of life of the community they serve as well as other officers.

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.

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 Medicaid revisions and expansion under the ACA, exhibited the federal government overstepping their power as they tried to penalize any state governments in opposition of the expansion, consequently, taking away states’ power. The Medicaid Expansion Mandate would’ve compelled states to join due to the loss of federal funding towards Medicaid if they did not adhere to (Phi Le, par.40). The Supreme Court hearing allowed states to have a choice whether or not to participate in the expansion without a total loss of their Medicaid funding. In return, states who didn't participate wouldn’t receive additional funding that coupled with this mandate that required inclusion, extending coverage of those who were at “Income below or ar 133% federal

Through successful implementation millions of Americans would benefit from the imposition of health insurance through the ACA. The law intended to cover the poorest Americans under the Medicaid expansion option and to cover low and middle-income earners with new health insurance exchanges. However, in June 2012, the Supreme Court overruled a portion of this landmark victory by giving each state the option to forego the Medicaid expansion provision. The Court’s ruling creates a breach in the ACA’s potential to afford healthcare to the working poor and abandons those who do not quite qualify for market place subsidies. Consequently, a large segment of the United States population will remain uninsured due to the lack of affordability.

Supreme Court Case 11-393 is a historic case that changed the healthcare system in America by allowing Congress to mandate participation through an individual tax. The Supreme Court Case “concerns constitutional challenges to two key provisions” of the ACA “commonly referred to as the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion” (Roberts.7). These two provisions are key to the healthcare reform, and are the most controversial provisions in the ACA plan. This case came about when “the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the individual mandate provisions of the Act exceeded Congress’s constitutional power to enact the individual mandate” (8). The

The author compares the specific goals and claims of the Affordable Care Act with the actual experiences in the areas of its implementation. The assessment is made in terms of access, costs and affordability, and quality of care provided. The article uses secondary data to present the perimeters of the assessment. According to the findings, affordable healthcare cost has not been realized and over 37 million Americans are likely to remain uninsured even after full implementation of ACA in 2019. More millions are likely to remain underinsured as profiteering will dominate the culture of healthcare in the US. The author notes that there is need to address the for-profit and bureaucracy in the US healthcare system and concludes by laying out benefits and economic, moral and sociopolitical lessons from ACA within the first five

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

Where will I go when I’m sick? Who can I rely on, my government or myself? Will I have to choose between paying bills and the health of my family? The United States of America’s government’s Affordable Care Act is attempting to remove that question from every citizen’s mind. The ACA will allow lifesaving and non-emergency medical treatments to be at the fingertips of every tax paying American. It will make healthcare a right, not just a luxury. Although these may seem like outstanding qualities, is it really all that it is made out to be? “The Affordable Care Act (ACA), officially called The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), is a US law that reforms both the healthcare and health insurance industries in America. The law increases the quality, availability, and affordability of private and public health insurance to over 44 million uninsured Americans through its many provisions which include new regulations, taxes, mandates, and subsidies (PAR 2, Obamacare Facts).” With that being said, I will discuss the controversies seen from both parties in relation to the Affordable Care Act, and bring forth many important factors such as: the benefits and consequences, the cost of the ACA and the coverage actually received, and the future of the Health Care System in a world with Obamacare. The purpose of this paper is to give information in an unbiased manner in relation to the Affordable Care Act.

Charles, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was intended to correct the historical issues related to cost and access in the health care system in America (Pagel, Bates, Goldmann & Koller, 2017). The ACA was an attempt by the US government to ensure access to health insurance was available for more Americans. The historical role of the government in health care prior to the ACA had been that the government should only have a little involvement in the delivery and reimbursement of services with respect to having a role in policy making for the protection of the public’s health (Williams & Torrens, 2008). The role of government involvement has changed through the Medicare and Medicaid government programs. Today, these programs have the

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the most significant health care legislation reform in the United States since the passing of Medicare and Medicaid (Russell Sage Foundation, n.d.). Changes in healthcare delivery affect consumers, insurance companies, healthcare providers, and policy makers. Several factors provoked this monumental change in health care. Social, political, and economic forces drive change in the United States healthcare system. Within these categories, scarcity, a changing demography, and interests groups have a profound influence on how we view health care and which policies are enacted.

Dr. Atul Gawande wrote a piece for the New Yorker titled “Now What.” It was published just one short month after President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and it addresses a few points of consideration surrounding the controversial law, points that have since compounded into intense debates. For anyone who has glanced at a newspaper or navigated the internet between then and now, it’s impossible to miss; the tension created from the passing of the ACA is palpable. Four years later, the ACA remains a hot topic, especially in political circles.

The question of whether or not Congress has the power to force people to buy health insurance has been highly advocated by the supporters, and highly scrutinized by the opposition. The constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 has thus been defended on both sides. Advocates argues why it is constitutional by providing reason and benefits of the Act, and the opposition argues why it is not constitutional by providing reason, and stating the drawbacks of the Act. The debate about the Constitutionality of the Act boils down to whether has Congress violated its powers as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.

Since the initiation of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, Americans have been put back in charge of their individual health care. Under this new law, a health insurance marketplace provides a haven for individuals without insurance to gain coverage. Just this year, citizens found out early whether they qualified for Medicare or the CHIP formally known as the Children’s Health Insurance Program. So much is to be learned about the Affordable Care act and this paper provides the roles of the different governmental branches, along with other important factors associated with this law.