Obamacare in Newspapers

The Issue Discussed In the Two Articles 

The first article by The New York Times is dubbed “Republicans Couldn’t Knock Down Obamacare. So They’re Finding Ways around It.'' The article discusses how the Trump administration is always hell-bent to topple the Obamacare because they view it as a hurdle to the less regulated insurance markets. Because they had failed to bring the law down in 2017, they are now using different mechanisms aimed at eliminating it. The article further describes that one of the main reasons for the inception of the Obamacare was because it had many rules regarding insurance meaning that coverage would be accessible to Americans. However, the Trump administration is doing all within its capacity to frustrate the provisions of the Obamacare by making the rules more increasingly optional. Also, the article also highlights that because the Trump administration is unable to bring down the Obamacare, it has resorted to creating another parallel market which is free of many rules that resemble the one that had initially been replaced by Obamacare (Sanger-Katz, 2018) 

The second article from the Washington Post is known as ‘’Americans are Sticking by Obamacare. If only the GOP would stop trying to kill it.’’ Similarly, the news article discusses how the Affordable Care Act, also known as the Obamacare has received widespread attack but has however remained resilient in the wake of such an immense rejection from a section of the political class. On the contrary, the law continues to prove repeatedly that it plays a critical role in America's healthcare system. The article also highlights the important role played by the Obamacare in covering people especially those who do not get insurance covers from their employers. The Republicans are vehemently against the Obamacare, and they are on record making claims that the plan has been collapsing. However, the article asserts that many insurance companies stabilized in 2017, despite the fact that Trump’s administration was focused on undermining the law. The article further reveals the long-term initiative employed by the Republicans in launching an attack against the Affordable Care Act. The plan’s individual mandate is scheduled to end soon this year (Americans are sticking by Obamacare. If only the GOP would stop trying to kill it). 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

In the first article, the conclusion made is that fundamental laws need to be put in place in a bid to mitigate the influence of the Obamacare. ‘’Americans shouldn’t be punished by its failure to provide choices’’ (Sanger-Katz, 2018). Seema Verma, the administrator of Medicare and Medicaid services, asserted this in reference to the Obamacare. The Republicans, therefore, view the Affordable care act as a law that causes suffering to the Americans. They find it unacceptable that people should live in a country a policy allows only for one insurer. Therefore, some of the recommendations suggested by the Republicans include allowing older plans that came before Obamacare to take effect and ensuring that the rules exist for up to another year. Another change that the Trump administration is bringing in its bid to topple the Obamacare is introducing health plans that would cover less robust sets of benefits which are however deemed to be mostly marginal. 

The major conclusion that is made in the second article is that with the Republican’s wave of attack on the Affordable Care Act including the elimination of the individual mandate, the number of people enrolling in the program will likely go down. Many people, especially the ‘’customers who feel healthy will face fewer incentives to stay in the system.’’ The newly proposed HHS rules are also prospected to affect the enrollments rates especially for the healthy because they promote cheaper and skimpy plans which will make it difficult for insurers to maintain fiscal stability of the plans covering the sick people. The article also concludes by asserting that the Congress any meaningful bipartisan bills that would stabilize Obamacare. The article makes one recommendation by saying that it would be better to make the Obamacare more useful. As such, the Republicans should devote their efforts towards its improvement rather than its sabotage. 

Similarities and Differences 

One notable similarity between the two articles is that they reveal the strategies that the Republican Party under the stewardship of Donald Trump is using to eliminate the Obamacare. Some of the methods suggested are the creation of parallel market plans, the reintroduction of the very policies that Obamacare sought to replace, and removing its solitary mandate. The second similarity in the two articles is that both of them appreciate the fact that the public is more supportive of the Affordable Care Act. The first article asserts that the Obamacare provided accessible coverage to all Americans irrespective of their health status. The second article, on the other hand, reveals that ‘'a sizeable number of Americans do not get insurance from their employers and value the coverage on Obamacare's markets.'' 

Whereas the first article has information suggesting that there should be changes in the law to ensure that better policies replace the Obamacare, the second article is focused on rallying the Republicans to improve Obamacare and instead of sabotaging it. The second article admits that there are visible signs of that enrollment among the healthy people would soon reduce especially with the introduction of the HHS rules that provide cheaper alternatives. On the contrary, the first article does not give any indication of the falling levels of enrollments in the Affordable Care Act. 

Reasons Given For the Conclusions 

In the first article, the reason given for the conclusion is that the Americans should not be punished for the failure of the government to provide other viable options as done with the Obamacare. The article also attempts to justify its conclusions by asserting that the Obamacare has caused major sufferings to many Americans. The second article attributes the attacks on the Affordable Care Act to the failure of the Congress to enact laws that would act to strengthen it. Furthermore, it asserts that the failure of the Obamacare would be down to the introduction of the HHS which has provided cheaper options, especially for the healthy clients. 

Sources 

Although the sources are not cited nor do they use any references from any resources, the legitimacy and reliability of the information provided stems from the fact that they are from known and reputable news sources. Margot Sanger-Katz authors the first article in the New York Times. The author is a domestic correspondent who specializes in writing about matters healthcare. Her reputation is premised on the fact that she was previously a reporter and an editor for the National Journal and Yale Alumni magazine respectively. The second article is from the Washington Post written by the editorial board hence increasing its reliability. 

Bias 

In the first article, there is a sign of bias when the author fails to counter the claims ‘’until the law changes, we won’t stand idly by as Americans suffer.’’ The assertions were made by the administrator of Medicare and Medicaid Services. It would be fallacious to claim that all that the Affordable Care Act has caused Americans is suffering. The author ought to have challenged such utterances by rebutting on the claims. However, failure to do so creates a general atmosphere of bias. In the second article, bias is seen when the author writes ‘’another fictional Republican claim is that Obamacare has been collapsing.’’ The bias is seen in terming the claim fictional although the data given in the same article proves that the enrollments rates have been reducing over the recent past. 

Logical Flaws 

In the first article, one logical flaw presented is the Trump’s administration to introduce retrogressive policies that had been replaced by the Obamacare as a method of bringing change and absolving Americans from suffering. In the second article, the logical flaw would still be represented by failing to acknowledge that the Obamacare is declining despite the evidence by the diminishing rates of enrollment. 

The relevance of the Article in My Personal and Professional Life 

As a citizen, medical insurance cover is a fundamental aspect that affects me in one way or the other. If a retrogressive policy that does not take into consideration the welfare of the common citizen then I will most likely suffer because I might pay higher or receive a wide range of inconveniences. The Obamacare is an affordable plan that has received praise from many quarters, and if it is replaced, then the government must ensure that it gives the citizens an equally convenient or a better plan. With regards to my professional life, access to healthcare is a major consideration as far as nursing and health science is concerned. An all-inclusive insurance plan will increase access to healthcare and further reduce the disparities seen along the socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic lines. Therefore, as a nursing practitioner, one of my main aims is to ensure that I influence the creation of insurance policies that will help in the improvement of healthcare uniformly across the spectrums of diversity. 

References 

Americans are sticking by Obamacare. If only the GOP would stop trying to kill it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/upshot/rpublicans-couldnt-knock-down-obamacare-so-theyre-finding-ways-around-it.html 

Sanger-Katz M. (2018). “Republicans couldn’t knock down Obamacare. So they’re finding ways around it. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/upshot/rpublicans-couldnt-knock-down-obamacare-so-theyre-finding-ways-around-it.html