The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is among reforms, which have attracted a lot of criticism. While proponent of ObamaCare believes it is an important tool to manage the challenging healthcare environment, other strongly rejects the policy as unsound and untimely. Among the several debates, clouding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is its meaning to millions of Americans. Healthcare reforms in the United States have discriminated people in many ways. As a result, the place of everyone in any new reform is a sensitive area. The cost of the healthcare coverage has been its main issue. Economists have come up with numerous prepositions to make the Affordable Care Work.
The debatable aspects of Obamacare are the cost of insurance cover, the aspect of discrimination, ethical concerns, and the scope of insurance cover. Through these aspects, the critical nature of the Afordable Healthcare Act has been made. The proponents of Obamacare believe it will manage all critical all healthcare challenge in regards to discrimination, cost, and coverage ( US. Government. (2010 ) ). Critics also believe Obamacare has only succeeded to spread the cost to non-consumers. At the same time, the long-term financial implication was overlooked.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There is need to curb the family glitch. The significant problem faced by the Affordable Care Act is the ‘family glitch.’ ACA was drafted to reduce the cost of care coverage. As a result, it prohibited the employers’ coverage to exceed 9.5 percent of their employees’ household income (Collins, Davis, & Ho, 2005). The law; however, was structured to cover individual employees interest and not their entire family, the segment with greater financial burden. Employees who were given ‘affordable’ plan do not qualify for state or federal subsidiaries since their families are not covered. The glitch affects many Americans. Averagely individual plan is estimated at $5,600, but it shoots to over $15,700 for entire family.
Family glitch can be solve by introducing Free Choice Vouchers, allowing employees to request their employers’ contribution once employer-based coverage become insufficient. Similar provision existed in the Act before it was amended in 2011. The approach would ensure more coverage and at a reduced cost, especially for those pressed by the current situation.
The Medicaid coverage gap should be looked into. After the Supreme Court ruled that states have the mandate to exit Medicaid expansion, the low-income groups who would have had access to Medicaid were further negatively affected in the states that allowed the expansion. Since most of the people fall below the federal poverty level that allows them access federal subsidies, as result they fall within the coverage gap (Dafny, Duggan, & Ramanarayanan, 2009). These groups of Americans are ineligible to Medicaid in their respective states. It is believed that over 5.2 million poor Americans trapped in the ‘coverage gap’ among the states that adopted the Medicaid expansion.
The government has acted by exempting the people in the ‘coverage gap’ from paying individual mandate penalty of failing to secure coverage. However, ACA does not expand to cover the group. The solution to the challenge is state based. The states can apply to secure federal waiver or expand fully funded Medicaid up to 2017 when 10% funding will be eligible. For example, Arkansas employed the waiver option for its people. The waiver option allows states to channel federal income to fund low-income groups with funding to purchase policies on their own.
The extension of funding though the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is closely linked to the Affordable Care Act and was extended in 2015 as part of the law. In case the Congress suspend the funding, an estimate of over 8 million low income American children, would lose healthcare coverage. The extension of CHIP was tied into ACA, commonly believed by analysts as a political tool (Deroy, 2013). The solution to the problem lies in the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Child Health Financing recommendation that CHIP should be funded fully to 2019.
The issue of recoupment for people with varying incomes. The ACA allows refundable tax credit. Some people may earn more than their expectation, allowing them with more credit than they should have qualified for. In such cases, they are required to do the repayment in tax penalty (Hacker, 2008). To solve the problem, individuals previous years should be used to implement their subsidies. The subsidies will reduce tax penalties and weighing down those with low income.
Based on the recommendations, Obamacare will turn out as a fruitful care Act, which will not only meet a significant population, needs but also become the most cost-effective care plan. It should be outlined that ACA still present more strength than demerits associated with its implementations.
References
Collins, S. R., Davis, K., & Ho, A. (2005). A shared responsibility: US employers and the provision of health insurance to employees. Inquiry: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing , 42 (1), 6-15.
Dafny, L., Duggan, M., & Ramanarayanan, S. (2009). Paying a premium on your premium? Consolidation in the US health insurance industry (No. w15434). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Deroy, M. (2013). O bamacare: Crushing a Woman’s Right to Choose Her Health-Care Plan . ` National Review Online. Retrieved: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362475/obamacare-crushing-womans-right- choose-her-health-care-plan-deroy-murdock
Hacker, J. S. (2008). The historical logic of national health insurance: Structure and sequence in the development of British, Canadian, and US medical policy. Studies in American Political Development , 12 (01), 57-130.
US. Government. (2010 ). Patient protection and affordable care act. Public Law , 111 , 48.
