Whether the American government should cover Medicare, and to what extent, has been a highly controversial topic for many years. Senator Bernie Sanders, alongside a group of Democratic congressmen, have introduced a new plane called "Single-Player Health Care. " What this new bill proposes, is a new way to completely cover the American people with health care within the next decade. The Op-ed "Single-Player Heath Care- a bad idea Democrats Love," written by U.S. Senator John Barrasso of Fox News, argues that Single-Player healthcare is not something that will benefit the American people. On the contrary, "Bernie Sanders: Why we Need Medicare for all”, by Senator Bernie Sanders of The New York Times, argues that the act would prove as extremely
One of the author’s reasoning for how taking away ACA would affect Medicaid is back in 2016 legislation tried to step away from it, but former President Barack Obama repealed it because could eventually affect the lives of millions of people. The authors also cover how ACA changed Medicaid for the better, for example creating a program for just children’s coverage, inventing a new method to determine eligibility, and even creating new benefit options for families and small businesses. The author describes how the new Presidential administration can repeal or alter Medicaid through Section 1115. The authors main argument is that by repealing ACA would eliminate the Medicaid system which in turn will allow millions of people to be
“Healthcare Reform 101,” written by Rick Panning (2014), is a wonderful article that describes, in an easy-to-understand language, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law March 23, 2010. The main goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was to provide affordable, quality healthcare to Americans while simultaneously reducing some of the country’s economic problems. Two areas will be covered throughout this paper. The first section will include a summary of the major points and highlights of Panning’s (2014) article, including an introduction to the ACA, goals of the signed legislation, provided coverage, and downfalls of the current healthcare system. The second part will be comprised of a professional
The debate over healthcare and health insurance has been disputed over for many years among politicians. The question many of them ask, along with the citizens of America, is simply whether the state or federal government should control health care. While there are pros and cons to both sides, there is a clear answer to this long fought over issue. Health care should be run by states because they manage their health insurance exchanges more efficiently, maintain the cost and quality of health insurance and care, and are constitutionally and lawfully accountable. States should run the health care system because state-run health exchanges are managed more efficiently than federal-run exchanges.
First, state taxpayers may experience rising healthcare costs disproportionate to other states (Mahan, 2). Without tailored federal assistance, health care costs may contribute to an unbalanced state budget that burdens the taxpayer. In order to account for this, states may be forced to eliminate certain programs, therefore, leaving some without coverage. Medicaid currently covers almost 70 million Americans, including one in three children, four in 10 births and 70 percent of nursing home residents (Kodjak, 2). With the implementation of block grants, especially without clear guidance and infrastructure, those currently covered by the Affordable Care Act could very well experience reduction or loss of their health coverage.
Where does the GOP's Healthcare bill stand? Big changes are expected from the GOP health care bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicated the premiums of those people who get their insurance covers from health care.gov exchange or from directly from an insurer will rise significantly by 20% in 2018. According to the non-partisan congressional budget office (CBO), the GOP bill will double the number of people without coverage.
A Second Look at the Affordable Care Act David E. Mann, ABA American Military University POLS210 Abstract Since the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), twenty-eight states have either filed joint or individual lawsuits to strike down the PPACA. This document will examine a few key elements that the President of the United States must take into consideration when reviewing the act and moving forward to either ratify the act, replace the act, or leave the act as it is. Topics that will be presented will include; the current issues being debated, two competing thoughts on how to fix the ACA, an evaluation of the preferred solution, and finally the responsibility of each level of government. Patient
The author provides an extensive amount of information for the reader to form an educated opinion on the Obamacare, however, the information is biased. The reader is influenced by what the author is saying, and is not able to form his or her own opinion on the matter. The author discusses one point of view on the topic to explain and dispute, and he or she refrains from providing information about the other point of view. As a result, this article is not able to be used as an educational resource, but as a resource for a compare and contrast essay or a persuasive paper.
Single Payer health care is also much cheaper overall than the currently implemented or any previously implemented system in the United States. The inefficiencies and deprivation of human due to for-profit health care systems must come to an end, and a single payer system must be signed into law because many people have had and will have their lives abused and ruined by the current
In 2017, Republicans take on changing the health-care industry was for each senator to find the best solution for his or her state. The most perilous rift sits between Republicans from states that accepted the federal funding to enlarge Medicaid coverage to millions more Americans, and those from states that turned down that expansion. Earlier I mentioned how many do not look at congress as a business, but indulge in emotions to fix an issue. Many of the Republicans from non-Medicaid-expansion states are more
The nature of the current debate surrounding the implementation of universal healthcare in America is troubling because it is comprised almost entirely of pragmatic arguments void of concern for the principles behind the project. Before one asks how much a thing will cost, how it will be organized, or whether “the uninsured” will benefit, one should ask whether enacting universal healthcare is in keeping with the values and principles of the American experiment. In other words, is universal healthcare good for America? Universal healthcare is not good for America.
The first editorial is in favor of the universal healthcare system. The author supports the claim with statistical reasoning when presenting the argument. The editorial focuses more on facts, logic, and reasoning rather than emotions and opinions.
The law that was intended to improve the status quo of health care has, in essence, caused a dangerous paradigm shift in health care costs. Fundamentally, the Affordable Care Act is a failed attempt to reduce health care costs in the United States. The Act was designed to increase affordability of health insurance for extremely low-income families; nevertheless, the Act exponentially increased health insurance costs for the majority of Americans. In America, majority rules-- why should health care be an
The real debate is how can we accomplish the goal of universal healthcare in the most affordable and sustainable way. The United States is evaluated as a wealthy country, yet there are more penurious countries who provide health maintenance, paid through higher taxes. “In the United Kingdom and other European countries, payroll taxes average 37% - much higher than the 15.3% payroll taxes paid by the average US worker” (Gregory). With this data, the only reform would be to end the private health insurance companies of dominant health services, and incorporate a single payer system. Conversely, it is factual that taxes will rise, but the implementation of universal healthcare will better the health of American citizens.
Health care should not be considered a political argument in America; it is a matter of basic human rights. Something that many people seem to forget is that the US is the only industrialized western nation that lacks a universal health care system. The National Health Care Disparities Report, as well as author and health care worker Nicholas Conley and Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), strongly suggest that the US needs a universal health care system. The most secure solution for many problems in America, such as wasted spending on a flawed non-universal health care system and 46.8 million Americans being uninsured, is to organize a national health care program in the US that covers all citizens for medical necessities.
