Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Essay

Regardless of political affiliation, individuals often grow concerned when considering perceived competing interests of government and their impact on topics of interest to them. The realm of healthcare is no different. Some people feel that local, state, and federal policies and legislation can be either helped or hindered by interests other than the benefit to society. Consider for example that the number one job of a legislator is to be reelected. Cost can be measured in votes as well as dollars. Thus, it is important to consider the legislator’s perspective on either promoting or not promoting a certain initiative in the political landscape. To Prepare: Review the Resources and reflect on efforts to repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Consider who benefits the most when policy is developed and in the context of policy implementation. By Day 3 of Week 3 Post an explanation for how you think the cost-benefit analysis in terms of legislators being reelected affected efforts to repeal/replace the ACA. Then, explain how analyses of the voters views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies (e.g., Congress\’ decisions impacting Medicare or Medicaid). Remember, the number one job of a legislator is to be re-elected. Please check your discussion grading rubric to ensure your responses meet the criteria. Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Essay.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM -FREE PAPER NOW

The cost-benefit analysis in terms of legislators being reelected has had an influence on effort to repeal/replace the ACA. A review of the performance of ACA reveals that repealing/replacing the legislation makes financial sense. The repeal would save between $1.55 trillion and $1.75 trillion through 2027 from coverage provisions. In addition, repealing/replacing the legislation would save between $750 billion and $950 billion through 2027 from coverage and revenue provisions. Besides that, delaying efforts to repeal/replace ACA would reduce the potential savings discussed. A four-year delay would reduce the saving to between $300 billion and $500 billion. However, the repealing ACA is expected to increase the number of uninsured Americans by 23 million. The analysis reveals that repealing/replacing ACA has positive budgetary effects (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 2020). Despite the anticipated budgetary benefits, legislators find it difficult to repeal/replace ACA. This has been largely blamed on their reelection efforts. The legislation offers budgetary benefits but is expected to increase the number of uninsured Americans by 23 million, with the number expected to increase over time. In addition, this is expected to increase health care costs and reduce access as many voters would be forced pay for health care that was previously subsidized by ACA. In this case, each legislator would be concerned with how his/her constituents are affected by the legislation. Should a large proportion of them be negatively affected by the legislative change then the legislator is likely to oppose efforts to change the legislation as a representation of the voters’ interests. On the other hand, should a large proportion of the voters be unconcerned with the legislation, then the legislator is likely to support efforts to change ACA as this would not have a negative effect on reelection efforts (Stanhope & Lancaster, 2016). In this respect, the actions of legislators are guided by effects on voters and reelection.

References

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (2020). The Cost of Full Repeal of the Affordable Care Act. https://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-full-repeal-affordable-care-act

Stanhope, M., & Lancaster, J. (2016). Public Health Nursing: Population-Centered Health Care in the Community (9^th ed.). Elsevier Inc. Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Essay.