Signage Of The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act : The PPACA Case Analysis

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.

rehend the PPACA, one must understand the history of the United States’ health care system. The most successful and known reform would be the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. President Johnson’s main objective with his program was to provide health insurance to those over 65 years old, who otherwise wouldn’t be able to receive coverage due to retirement or being financially unfit to purchase health insurance. It has since been expanded to cover those with disabilities, and lower income families (“Overview,” 2015). Brady (2015) examines President Clinton’s attempt to massively overhaul health care in the United States. His plan, the Health Security Act (HSA), required employers to offer health insurance to their employees, and mandated that every US citizen purchase health insurance. This plan would have most likely expand health insurance to many more Americans; however, many feared the large tax increases, restricted options for patients, and with the lack of general support for the bill, it failed in Congress and was never implemented (p. 628). President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care reform opened up the door to future reforms, and it even shared multiple similarities to the PPACA. Smith (2015) updates the history of the health care system in America stating that “In the mid-2000s, America’s uninsured population swelled to nearly 47 million, representing about 16 percent of the population” and how “16 million Americans […] were underinsured” (p. 2). People

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 potential opportunity for the state to opt into the Medicaid expansion is the fact that low-income citizens will be insured. The decision of the state to opt into the Medicaid expansion will also impact the state’s budget, and this is the main challenge (Frakt, 2013). The government will cover majority of all the cost even as Medicaid expansion provides coverage for the low-income uninsured citizens. Expansion of the Medicaid is also a broken system that has poor outcomes, not severe federal strings, high inflation and no incentive for the personal responsibility of the citizens who

The Affordable Care Act was put in place by President Obama in 2010, providing Americans access to affordable health insurance. But South Carolina’s governor, the republican Nikki Haley is still rejecting the Medicaid expansion. My paper has detailed information on why Governor Haley and republicans made their decision to opt out of the expansion. Also, alternate approaches to expanding access to care and implementing or reconsidering the state’s decision of opting out of the expansion. Finally, recommendations to the state legislature to convey opting out of Medicaid expansion.

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

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

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

There has been much, debate between supporters and opponents of the law, over the pros and cons of the PPACA. It is undoubtedly an immense piece of legislation, which affects several portions of the U.S. health care system. There are those who believe that PPACA will not decrease the various cost associated with the U.S. health system, but will cause a cost increase. According to these individual, any purported decreases to the deficit is a result of imaginative accounting on behalf of the CBO and the Obama administration. The goal of this paper is to examine the effects the PPACA on the health care system. The focus will be to give a brief overview of insurance premiums and Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid provides medical assistance to citizens in the United States who fall within the eligibility requirements. Medicaid has been enacted since 1965 and has faced many changes. One change most recently was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the attempt to require states to expand Medicaid coverage to include more citizens. However, Medicaid is a states’ right and therefore Congress decided to leave expansion up to each individual state. As some states decide to move forward with expansion and some do not, this paper will discuss the pros and cons to each option and the financial impact that Medicaid expansion has on healthcare entities.

16–27. By regulating the State’s commerce, Congress is limiting what States really need to satisfy, their residents. Each state is different, and so are their residents. Simply enforcing a standard cookie-cutter health plan forces States to ignore their previous needs, and “budgetary challenges; Each state should be able to develop solutions that meet its specific needs” (Robert E. Moffit, Ph. D).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) also known as Affordable Care Act has passed to ensure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care, with PPACA millions of uninsured Americans will have access to coverage, it include measure that will lower health care cost and improve system efficiency and to eliminate the common practice of patients getting deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. With the state the US Health Care System is in now, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Is long overdue, Cost-Sharing subsidies of $350 Billion over a 10 year period is a great investment to help bring the many necessary changes and improvement that are needed in the current healthcare system. Cost Sharing

Due to the growing numbers of uninsured people, growth in medical debt and growing profit in healthcare corporations etc.., the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was enacted in 2010 to reform the health care system. To increase quality and affordable health care for all Americans, Title I of the PPACA strives to reform the health care system by giving more Americans access to quality, affordable health insurance, and helps to curb the growth of healthcare spending in the United States (“Affordable Care”, n.d.).

In the State of Mississippi, the Commissioner of Insurance Mike Chaney announced and submitted to U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) the application to establish the exchange; however, the governor Phil Bryant opposed the state exchange. The HHS rejected the application due to the opposition of the governor.2 Due to this dynamic, the State of Mississippi would be an interesting state to follow and observe how the state overcame the challenges to become one of the twenty-seven federally facilitated marketplace states.

Politics have long played a role in health care policy. Last week, we examined how politics influence health policy at the federal level. Health care has become a major target of politicians during recent election years, specifically, on whether or not state senators and the house of representative candidates support the Affordable Care Act. This is very similar at the state level, as the partisan power in state government is a key factor as to how much spending will go to health care coverage (Lanford & Quadagno, 2016). In 2012, the Supreme Court deemed the Medicare expansion, as presented in the ACA, as unconstitutional after 26 states filed lawsuits. States will now play an important role in Medicare expansion (Weil & Scheppach, 2010).