One of the primary responsibilities of an administration, whether federal or local, is the formulation and enactment of policies that make the lives of the American citizens easier. These responsibilities are exercised in line with the constitutional requirements and the needs of the people. The executive stands out in influencing the existing or future policies. This influence is manifested directly through the traditional law-making processes, in which the president may enact or veto an act or bill that has been forwarded by Congress or other policy-making agencies. Since the founding of the nation, many policies and legislation have been enacted and implemented by the U.S. administrations. A notable policy that significantly impacted the healthcare access for many Americans the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that was enacted by President Barack Obama in 2010. ACA, popularly known as Obamacare, has been hailed as a hallmark of healthcare reforms in the country. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) acknowledges that ACA is integral in healthcare provision for millions of Americans.
The current U.S. administration has sought to downregulate the power and capabilities of ACA. The botched attempts to revoke ACA through an act of Congress propelled the administration to device other methods that would implode the policy. The report by the CBO indicates that the U.S. government aims to increase the premiums and reduce funding for Obamacare ( Haislmaier, Moffit, & Senger, 2017). This, in essence, is a move intended to curtail the operations of Obamacare as insurance coverage for the millions of Americans. The effects is a projected increase in the number of uninsured Americans. Although limiting the funding for Obamacare is not directly repealing the act, the administration’s decision has a direct effect of suppression of the policy. The administration is legally justified to determine its spending and reduce or increase the allocation of funding for policy-making agencies. Using this legal mandate to curtail the activities of a policy, the administration opposes is not a pragmatic approach (McCarthy, 2017). Policies that enhance service provision and positively impact on the lives of Americans need to be supported and upheld by all administrations, regardless of the political schism between the administrations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Single Payer System
The debate on the healthcare insurance system that should be adopted in the United States is contentious, in light of the costs of healthcare to the American citizens, the government healthcare expenditure, and the tax obligations. The current healthcare system is heavily contingent on the private sector. The government provides regulated plans through marketplace private insurance companies (Benson et al., 206). This means that the eligibility of the citizens to a plan is determined by the policies of the insurance provider. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is popular among many American because it is perceived that it lowers the costs of healthcare. Despite the increased eligibility guidelines for the program, there are millions of Americans who remain uninsured. Reducing the population of the uninsured and increasing the access to healthcare for all Americans requires overhauling the current healthcare system and adopting the single-payer system.
Democrat senator Bernie Sanders has been on the foreground in advocating for a single-payer system, which he refers to as “Medicare for all.” Replacing the marketplace insurance companies with a directly controlled government program will reduce government healthcare spending per capita (Hsiao, Cheng, & Yip, 2016). The U.S. spends significantly more on healthcare than the average spending of other nations. The high population of the uninsured and those without access to healthcare does not match the high spending. By adopting the single-payer system, the rate of the uninsured and the per capita spending will be curtailed. The contention for support or rejection of the single-payer system springs from the idea of shifting the burden of care to the citizens. Opponents strongly allude to an increase in the tax burden on the population. The merits of increased insurance coverage and access to healthcare, however, outweigh the increase in tax (Blumberg, & Holahan, 2019). “Medicare for all” does not imply free healthcare access. It means that the citizens will have to dig a little deeper into their pockets but have access to healthcare at all times. All American citizens will be eligible for coverage in a single-payer system.
References
Benson, A. A., Mendelsohn, N., Gervits, M., Adeshuko, F., Garcia, C. S., & Smoller, S. (2016). Medical Student Views of Healthcare Reform in the United States, 2009. Einstein Journal of Biology and Medicine , 27 (1), 28-33.
Blumberg, L. J., & Holahan, J. (2019). The Pros and Cons of Single-Payer Health Plans.
Haislmaier, E., Moffit, R., & Senger, A. (2017). A Plan to Repeal and Replace Obamacare. Heritage Foundation Backgrounder , (3193).
Hsiao, W. C., Cheng, S. H., & Yip, W. (2016). What can be achieved with a single-payer NHI system: The case of Taiwan. Social Science & Medicine .
McCarthy, M. (2017). Obamacare repeal could leave 32 million uninsured and double premiums, report finds.
