The Pros And Cons Of Affordable Care

The beginning of the article started off very strong with the Republican views on how replacing theAffordable Care Act/ Obamacare seems to be beneficial because Americans believe that the government needs to provide healthcare for all which is “Medicare for all.” Throughout government; the left and right sides do not see eye to eye but in this discussion, they both seem to acknowledge the likelihood of this new system.

Currently the United States has the most expensive health care system in the world and some 45 million Americans are uninsured under the current health system, these numbers continues to grow. Using the theory of an Utilitarianism perspective and developing a single-payer system such as universal health care all Americans could enjoy equal access to quality health care. The single-payer system will provide tools to manage health spending more effectively and ensure health care for everyone. If the United States would follow the blueprint of other developed nations who have successfully implemented universal health care coverage it would protect citizens from high medical premiums, co-payments and give everyone access to equal health care. In the United States people go without health coverage, it is a problem that needs to be resolved, yet we remain one of the last developed countries to implement universal health care coverage. Despite efforts to enact polices for

The New York Times printed an article by Robert Pear, which reported that on December 24, 2009, the US senate passed the first bill, which would call for major reform regarding health care in the United States (Pear). The article titled “Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote,” discusses the fact that while this step was a major milestone in the process of providing Americans with affordable heath care, it was not the end of the road. Over the coming months and years there would be a lot of give and take between democrats and republicans to revise the bill to the point where both sides could support it. One of the major points in this reform is that the US government was now going to offer affordable plans including subsidy options which would allow more Americans affordable options which were

With rising healthcare costs being distributed predominantly on workers or their companies, the economic responsibility is placed on the very people who need it the least: the job creators. If the economic responsibility of healthcare costs was shifted to the government, the private sector job creators could have more revenue to stimulate the economy with additional jobs, better wages, and improved worker benefits. The best way to shift this cost obligation is via a single-payer healthcare system. A single-payer would make sure all citizens would be covered for all medical services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug, and medical supply costs.

There are many laws in the United States of America, but there is one law that is especially important, as it causes a lot of controversy, and politicians not in favor are trying to shut it down. In the 2016 election, the candidates have different opinions on it, and they argue about it a numerous amount of times. It is one of the main issues of the debates. The law has caused both benefits and problems for citizens of the USA. Some citizens of America have violently protested against the ACA, while some citizens lives depend on it. This law is called the Affordable Care Act, signed in 2010, and I strongly believe that it is a good law.

While campaigning for the 2016 presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed that America should adopt a single-payer health care system. In Sanders’s plan, there would have been only one insurance program that would have covered everyone in the United States; in effect, other programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and especially private insurance would be discontinued (Holahan, 2016, p. 1). If Sanders’s proposal were to be carried out, it would be a drastic change from the current system which predominately comprises of private insurance and hospitals under limited government regulations. The debate reopened on whether or not a single-payer system would be an effective system health care system or economically viable. Due to the contrasting nature of current health care system in the United States, policymakers should approach proposals of single-payer health care systems with caution and an understanding of the benefits and the drawbacks by examining the successes and failures of real-world systems.

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

In Chapter four of "Ten Letters", there is a letter to President Obama written by Natoma Canfield, a woman whose health insurance became increasingly unaffordable after she survived cancer. After receiving Natoma's letter, Obama often carried it with him as he spoke of the need to reform healthcare to make it more affordable to those who needed it the most and to expand coverage to those who could not get it. "The Affordable Care Act," which came to be called Obamacare in the news media, passed through both houses of congress without a single Republican vote in favor and was signed into law by President Obama in March 2010.

The future of healthcare resides in a single-payer system. Our country already has roughly fifty years of experience in this area under the Medicare program. By extending Medicare to all citizens we could ensure that all have the health coverage they need and that “everyone would make a financial contribution to Medicare for All” (Seidman, 2015). A single-payer system would also give the government the necessary leverage to negotiate better prices for care and prescription

As Americans citizens we have the freedom of religion, speech and press, the right to vote, the right to bear arms and the right to a fair trial so why not the right for affordable health insurance. Americans would appreciate reasonably priced health care with benefits and Obamacare was the first presidential attempt to force less ideal health care on all Americans; Trump has promised to revamp Obamacare and help Americans with better health care coverage.

Obamacare, a socialized healthcare system in the united states that was signed into law in early 2010. It was then repealed in late 2017. Some say it was bad for the the economy and for the face and image of a capitalist nation. Others would say that it has increased the amount of people with affordable healthcare and decreased the uninsured people in the U.S. But what is the truth? Is it good or bad for the american people? In this article I will be explaining the facts and my opinion on the issue.

Around the world, people often look at the United States for the boundless opportunities afforded to its citizens. However, one thing most of them cannot wrap their heads around is the idea that a person can accrue crippling debt should they become sick. Debate still continues on whether or not single payer healthcare is a viable option for the United States. In the current political climate, arguments for either side turn into a division between ideologies or parties rather than an objective comparison of the options. It is important to discover which system might be best suited, or at the very least, the advantages and disadvantages of each. Much of the data shows that a single payer option could potentially save money and allow more Americans access to healthcare, but do these anticipated advantages outweigh the costs?

The yearly expense of a family health plan is approximately $16,351, a figure that to the majority of families in the United States is unaffordable (Kamrany, 2014). “In a single-payer system, a public entity, such as the government, would pay all the medical bills for a certain population, rather than insurance companies doing that work” (“Doctors Warm to Single-Payer Health Care”, 2017). The United States federal government should provide health care to all its citizens with a single payer system, giving doctors and patients autonomy eliminating the exaggerated expensive costs and cover all Americans for medically necessary services.

As discussed in lecture (Paterniti, 2009) and in Oberlander’s analysis of the U.S. health care system, “any reform that threatens to alter the medical care arrangements of the insured is likely to provoke public opposition” (2003). Most likely, the insured are well off financially and/or politically powerful. These people, who are for the most part content with their current health insurance, would oppose

Less than a hundred years ago, in the late 1920’s and 30’s, almost 90% of Americans did not have health insurance (Fall of HMO’s 4). They used a variety of home remedies and when medical assistance was truly needed, they paid for it out of pocket, even incurring vast amounts of debt. This had been the case throughout history, and it changed due to an important factor, medical equipment. The industrial revolution finally caught up with the medical industry and the country saw a vast change in the scientific instruments used by physicians. These instruments required a lot of money to make and care for which caused prices to rise. Due to this massive problem, a committee was formed of health care professionals and after a 5 year study, the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care suggested that health insurance co-operatives start. These corporate medical practices became known as Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO’s) and preferred provider organizations (PPO’s), and up until the 1970’s, were an experiment to regions across the U.S. Factors that hindered health care included bullying of “money politics” from both sides of the isle as well as Presidential views and tactics as well. President Nixon first