Table of Contents
During his presidential bid, Obama made it no secret that healthcare formed the backbone of his pre-election goals (Jacobs and Skocpol 89). Single payer system was acknowledged by Obama premised on a system that ran all payments and medical costs through the government; however, he acknowledged that implementation of the system would appear impractical. The system in Obama’s mind was similar to systems in Europe and Canada. The system was compared to socialism and was supposedly meant to feed the starved societal and governmental needs. There was planned mandatory purchase of health insurance by all Americans; a host of commentators compared this idea to a utopian concept with dishonest and naïve sentiments. Furthermore, there is largely presence of power grabbing from the government resulting to an increase in tax. The promise that Obama care would result to portable and affordable coverage as well as improved initiatives on health would remain untenable.
This universal system of healthcare intimate free care; this was not the case since hospital staff, nurses and doctors costs money (Hall and Lord 100). By and large the system entails centralization of healthcare in the government. In case the government paid for all the needs of the patients, the resultant effect would be a web of costs that would prove difficult for the government to bear; this would mean that rationing of drugs and services would be the only option for the system to run. This is contrary to the benefits of a free market that affords patients the option to acquire services when and where they need them. Furthermore, this centralized system of healthcare would mean that patients have to be placed on long waiting lists and therefore cannot access healthcare when and where they need it. Actually, Obama care resulted to low health quality that turned out to be expensive. This is because healthcare was premised on federal government authority and supervision coupled with rationing emanating from the high number of citizens in the program all at once.
The healthcare system relies on use of medical equipment that is antiquated; the system is premised on the use of potentially old and unreliable technologies in the medical world (Nyhan, Reifler and Ubel 130). Use of old machines that require repair would be the case due to costs that have spiraled as a consequence of delay in acquisition of new ones. The obvious effect of this spate of events would be use of substandard equipment by the doctors in government hospitals that could prove hazardous. This widespread lack of new medical equipment leaves the healthcare system dangerous poised to respond to the mushrooming needs of the patient population. Largely, this older technologies would mean low quality diagnosis leading to misdiagnosis, ineffective prescriptions and dangerous treatment.
Acquisition of cheaper drugs has been associated with Obama care premised on price controls imposed by the government (Jones, Katharine, Bradley and Oberlander 111). In this regard, the prices are artificially reduced meaning a heavy burden on the tax payer to achieve it; this means that there is limited supply of the drugs. In addition, access to the most recent technologies in the medical world is limited. Universal healthcare would mean that the government limits person’s access to drugs. As a matter of fact, a lot of time is spent between access and availability of these drugs on the market place resulting to life threatening situations. Inflation coupled with subsidies emanating from the federal government will hit the American citizenry especially the low income earners. The cancellation of insurance based on groups, fines and mandates would intimate need for purchase via state based entities. Holders of small businesses would have their unique exchange systems for acquisition of insurance. In this regard, the position of the citizens with respect to eligibility for individual subsidies with stipulated income at the centre of the conundrum.
On the threshold of employees, there will be calamity premised on small corporations that will entail financially powerful companies assessment of fines devoid of workers lay off. This will mean that companies that fail in provision of healthcare will attract fines from the federal government as well as entertain reduction in the working capital. Furthermore, this will reduce growth of jobs due to lack of working capital that companies require to grow and expand. By and large, it will be difficult for the company to recruit new employees, increase pay and/or establish new projects. Businesses cannot escape mandates of the employer; federal government must approve insurance for their employees with huge fines being the result of failure in compliance (Obama 1377). The low penalty for failure to pay health insurance for the employees is lower than the cost of provision of health insurance_ the existing policies might be cancelled by the employers and thus force insurance purchase via exchanges that are based on the state agencies.
Obama care represents the first time the American government has required its citizens to buy anything; all residents and citizens have been forced to be in possession of healthcare insurance (Jones, Katharine, Bradley and Oberlander 121). A price has been set for those who fail to pay; non-compliance incurs a fine in form of a reduction in the percentage of household income. There is need to have agents employed to employ agents to enforce Obama care, this means that the burden of paying them is placed on the tax payers. This might seem as job creation to other proponents of Obama care. In fact, these its officials anticipate elimination and/or reduction in tax refunds for those who entail failure in health insurance.
Regulation of the insurance premium premised on changes especially on insurance companies that are privately owned (Hall and Lord 103). These have been seen by many as public relations stunts since the government forbids employers from cancelling unhealthy person’s health insurance. There was nothing new in this regulation as this has been the position for the past 10 years prior to Obama care. Obama care would mean absence of cheap insurance premised on the lack of annual as well as lifetime dollar caps on benefits. This would mean that all citizens will be subjected to expensive and unreasonable health insurance plans
The age that entails coverage under the health insurance plan is 26 years which is the minimum age for election into the House of Representatives. These young adults still remain at their parents health care insurance plan is outrageous as they can depend on themselves and their own insurance plans. Poor health and/or risky behaviour of the applicants will not form the basis for approval of insurance by insurers (Jacobs and Skocpol 109). By and large, this would be forcing the insurer to provide insurance to persons involved in already risky activities. Obama care does not entail equality in the community premised on age and geography with insurers focused on coverage that comprise costs that rely on the same price for all persons regardless of the rating of communities.
The private sector would be overcrowded by government insurance plans; there is fear that insurance plans could in the long run turn into public premises. The government administers insurance plans premised on the establishment of plans on health insurance that entail state based agencies on federal service as well as personnel management (Obama 1379). Obama care entails huge costs on the tax payers with consumption of $939 billion in a decade; the benefits of revenues premised on tax from Obama care far outweigh the benefits. Commentators argue that the supposed costs will impair the country’s health care insurance system. There will be rise in tax on persons per households with couples bearing the brunt of Obama care_ this will cover tax on rents, royalties and partnerships on the unearned income.
There will be an increase in health insurance costs as a result of new tax regulations to be borne by insurance companies; manufacturers of pharmaceuticals too will face huge liabilities in terms of taxes (Hall and Lord 107). Medicare will not benefit from Obama care since it will require payments with existing obligations meaning a decrease in beneficial obligations. Obama care would reduce Medicare advantage as the program’s budget would be reduced. Doctors would receive low payments premised on reduced Medicare meaning there will be a problem when patients storm the hospitals with smaller payments though coming in large numbers.
with any paper
A huge number of Americans have expressed their dissatisfaction with Obama care; more than half have questioned the intention of the policies premised on the health care mandate of the system. In essence, around 26% of the population intimated having felt benefits of Obama care, this is a small proportion compared to the 150 million Americans in need of the policy. The rest of the population feel the benefits of the system were felt by other citizens elsewhere casting doubt into the comprehensiveness of the system. By and large, Obama care requires low income persons as well as the middle class burdening individuals with the requirement that all must purchase health insurance. This has led to the conclusion that this legislation as “the most over-reaching legislation enacted in the history of the United States.” (Nyhan, Reifler and Ubel 132).
- Hall, Mark A., and Richard Lord. “Obamacare: what the Affordable Care Act means for patients and physicians.” Bmj 349.7 (2014): g5376-g5376.
- Jacobs, Lawrence, and Theda Skocpol. Health care reform and American politics: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, 2015.
- Jones, David K., Katharine WV Bradley, and Jonathan Oberlander. “Pascal’s Wager: health insurance exchanges, Obamacare, and the Republican dilemma.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 39.1 (2014): 97-137.
- Nyhan, Brendan, Jason Reifler, and Peter A. Ubel. “The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform.” Medical care 51.2 (2013): 127-132.
- Obama, Barack. “Securing the future of American health care.” New England Journal of Medicine 367.15 (2012): 1377-1381.