Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I will begin by defining cost-benefit analysis, which describes the systemic procedure involved in the estimation of both weaknesses and strengths of the options used in the determination of the most appropriate approach towards realizing the desired goals while cutting on expenditure. Cost-benefit analysis is mostly used as a business term describing the process of cost estimation and the intended profits to be made from the business. Having defined and described cost-benefit analysis, ACA as an amendment has been a major discussion in the houses where the repeal bill was initially introduced by the president. The ACA was ascended into law by President Obama in 2010, whose major objective was the development of a cost-efficient insurance cover that would be available for the citizens and provide a sustainable cost analysis. The ACA bill reduced household costs where the annual income was at 100 and 400 percent against the poverty line (Béland et al., 2020). The ACA bill by Obama expanded the reach of Medicaid, where those who lacked medical cover would have a chance for their medical insurance because of reduced medical costs. The bill was largely supported by the democrats; however, the republicans were against the bill because those who could not afford their health insurance had to incur higher premiums.

The bill to repeal ACA has been considered as one that does not address the interests of the people, and therefore, the bill has since been subjected to heated debate in both houses. The contested ACA repeal bill faced a number of backlashes in the House, including the fact that the bill never addressed ACA replacement majorly because congressional Republicans did not reach a consensus regarding the bill. While the majority of the Congressional Republicans did not agree on the bill, some of the candidates allied to the Republican party proposed health policies that would follow the repeal; however, there has not been a general call from the members of the House to replace the ACA. Therefore, I believe that if the legislators were looking for reelection, they would have to make a great effort towards repealing the ACA because this presents a better chance than when they are voted out in which they would support the bill, but this would not include the benefits of ACA (Campbell,& Shore-Sheppard, 2020). The legislators would end up enacting a bill that is contrary to the previous ACA bill, which many Americans felt addressed their needs better. Thus, the best approach would have the legislators not being reelected because this would mean no benefits and high costs, which does not largely address the interests of the people.

The analysis of voters’ views influences decisions made by the leaders in a recommendation of national policies because government policies are set to serve the citizens through programs that improve their well-being and health; in which programs such as Medicare are good examples. Some of the oversight approaches would include fraud, looking out for waste, and system abuse. All this oversight is required, especially in healthcare, for effective service delivery. When the views of the voters through decision-making influence the general output of the leaders, they would still enact policies, but if the voters have a difference of opinion in their conduct, then this would greatly influence national policies on a program such as Medicaid, where the congress decided on the program (Courtemanche et al., 2020). In this case, the voters would have a say in the matter because they represent the majority and also because it is the voters who have the sovereign power to decide on their policies. It is, therefore, clear how much the bill has been a historic process for America in which both parties had their argument regarding the bill that only served to address the cost of healthcare in America.

References

Béland, D., Howlett, M., Rocco, P., & Waddan, A. (2020). Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act. Policy Sciences, 53(2), 269-289.