The Affordable Healthcare Act
The Wrong Plan and the Wrong Time
President Obama in March 2010 asserted the revolutionary Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) into law. According to Michael Marcovici in the article You Can Keep Your Doctor: What Nobody Told You About Obamacare, the law known as Obamacare, “came with two objectives.” The first objectives were to increase access to affordable health care services among the great American citizens. The other objective was to serve as check and balance to the rising cost of healthcare services in the country. While, the President termed the policy as the future of American Health; the reality is somewhat far from the sentiments (Marcovici, 46). The plan is simply too expensive for the country 's health budget to handle. As such, the demise of the Affordable Health Care Act is inevitable because of the high cost of health services and drug prices. ACA was established by the underlying goal to cut down on health care spending by the federal government. Moreover, millions of uninsured Americans would get affordable health care services once the plan came into play. However, data from CMS indicate that spending on national health services by the federal government has been rising. The cost will thus continue to be an issue (Torinus, 124). In an article by the New York Times titled, ‘cost of coverage under ACA to increase in 2015, ' Americans will have to dig deeper into their pockets to maintain their current insurance coverage. The above evidences point to one fundamental argument that health care ought not to be free in our country if ACA is to survive the next coming years (Pipes 95). Conventionally speaking, the federal government should apply the principle of no free lunch. …show more content…
Much as the American people require help with securing insurance plans and accessing quality health services, the resource available to us are very limited. According to Sally Pipes in The Cure for Obamacare,” Evidently, the plan overstretches the health budget causing more problems to the economy (Pipes, 14). For instance, the federal government imposes new taxes in order to finance the program. Taxation is mostly a wrong policy given its implications on the general public. Therefore, the citizens should pay for their insurance coverage. A survey by Gallup indicates that the majority of Americans with insurance coverage were planning to keep it. It shows, therefore that ACA is attractive enough for people to pay for it and thus should not be free or subsidized (Roy, 237). Another standing argument against the provision of lower cost healthcare is the fact that job sponsored insurance groups are much more reasonable than ACA. The aforementioned article by New York Times show, for instance, which, consumers of low premium insurance coverage will have paid annual deductibles of $4,000 in 2015 instead of $2,000 (Michael, 17). It goes on to show how Obamacare is becoming more expensive as years roll on. Job sponsored insurance coverage, on the other hand, is much more inexpensive. A good example is the Walmart Health Plan. It beats the Obamacare in affordability, quality, deductibles, and standard plans just to mention a few (Sally, 114). The federal government will be making a vital milestone by eliminating the provision of lower cost health care to citizens. …show more content…
The same sentiments should also apply in the case of pharmaceutical price gouging. Indeed, Obamacare should look into reducing drug prices to ensure its survival in the American health care system (Pipes, 29). According to Generic Drug Price Gouging Theory, drug prices in the domestic markets are skyrocketing compared to international markets. For instances, drugs prices in the American market rose 11% higher back in 2011 compared to Canadian, France and Switzerland market, mainly due to American greed and the supply and demand. Resultantly, millions of Americans go without drugs every day due to unaffordable drug prices (Marcovici, 52). Nonetheless, there are a number of ways that the government could solve this problematic system. First, the government should exercise more control over pharmaceutical companies to ensure fair pricing for all consumers in which it can achieve through market regulations that seek to bring about competitive rates. Secondly, the government should impose a total ban on lobby groups
The Wrong Plan and the Wrong Time
President Obama in March 2010 asserted the revolutionary Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) into law. According to Michael Marcovici in the article You Can Keep Your Doctor: What Nobody Told You About Obamacare, the law known as Obamacare, “came with two objectives.” The first objectives were to increase access to affordable health care services among the great American citizens. The other objective was to serve as check and balance to the rising cost of healthcare services in the country. While, the President termed the policy as the future of American Health; the reality is somewhat far from the sentiments (Marcovici, 46). The plan is simply too expensive for the country 's health budget to handle. As such, the demise of the Affordable Health Care Act is inevitable because of the high cost of health services and drug prices. ACA was established by the underlying goal to cut down on health care spending by the federal government. Moreover, millions of uninsured Americans would get affordable health care services once the plan came into play. However, data from CMS indicate that spending on national health services by the federal government has been rising. The cost will thus continue to be an issue (Torinus, 124). In an article by the New York Times titled, ‘cost of coverage under ACA to increase in 2015, ' Americans will have to dig deeper into their pockets to maintain their current insurance coverage. The above evidences point to one fundamental argument that health care ought not to be free in our country if ACA is to survive the next coming years (Pipes 95). Conventionally speaking, the federal government should apply the principle of no free lunch. …show more content…
Much as the American people require help with securing insurance plans and accessing quality health services, the resource available to us are very limited. According to Sally Pipes in The Cure for Obamacare,” Evidently, the plan overstretches the health budget causing more problems to the economy (Pipes, 14). For instance, the federal government imposes new taxes in order to finance the program. Taxation is mostly a wrong policy given its implications on the general public. Therefore, the citizens should pay for their insurance coverage. A survey by Gallup indicates that the majority of Americans with insurance coverage were planning to keep it. It shows, therefore that ACA is attractive enough for people to pay for it and thus should not be free or subsidized (Roy, 237). Another standing argument against the provision of lower cost healthcare is the fact that job sponsored insurance groups are much more reasonable than ACA. The aforementioned article by New York Times show, for instance, which, consumers of low premium insurance coverage will have paid annual deductibles of $4,000 in 2015 instead of $2,000 (Michael, 17). It goes on to show how Obamacare is becoming more expensive as years roll on. Job sponsored insurance coverage, on the other hand, is much more inexpensive. A good example is the Walmart Health Plan. It beats the Obamacare in affordability, quality, deductibles, and standard plans just to mention a few (Sally, 114). The federal government will be making a vital milestone by eliminating the provision of lower cost health care to citizens. …show more content…
The same sentiments should also apply in the case of pharmaceutical price gouging. Indeed, Obamacare should look into reducing drug prices to ensure its survival in the American health care system (Pipes, 29). According to Generic Drug Price Gouging Theory, drug prices in the domestic markets are skyrocketing compared to international markets. For instances, drugs prices in the American market rose 11% higher back in 2011 compared to Canadian, France and Switzerland market, mainly due to American greed and the supply and demand. Resultantly, millions of Americans go without drugs every day due to unaffordable drug prices (Marcovici, 52). Nonetheless, there are a number of ways that the government could solve this problematic system. First, the government should exercise more control over pharmaceutical companies to ensure fair pricing for all consumers in which it can achieve through market regulations that seek to bring about competitive rates. Secondly, the government should impose a total ban on lobby groups