Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), famously known as Obamacare, sought to enhance universal healthcare access by making health insurance to be inexpensive for all Americans. ACA targeted individual market, employer-provided benefits, and non-Medicare-eligible population to ensure they accessed affordable and comprehensive insurance coverage without any discrimination on the basis of their health status (Nadash, Miller, Jones, Gusmano, & Rosenbaum, 2018). The Republican Party seeks to stop government interference in the insurance market. It has spearheaded efforts to repeal and replace the ACA through the courts terming it as unconstitutional. Additionally, several states have shown open hostility to the law since it expanded the Medicaid coverage. Besides, House and Senate Republicans have sponsored several repeal initiatives such as Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) and Graham-Cassidy bills (Nadash et al., 2018). The constant onslaught of the ACA from President Trump and Republicans has led to an increase in premiums and several insurers withdrawing from selling the insurance plans in the recent past. The early success of the ACA, whereby millions of Americans secured insurance coverage through the individual markets, subsidies for low-income individuals, and Medicaid, have been eroded.

The Impact of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Milstead and Short (2019) argue that the supporters and critics of ACA include the members of Congress whose main objective is to be re-elected during the election cycles. The opponent’s debates and efforts to repeal and replacement of ACA in both President Obama and Trump’s administrations are deliberate for political expediency as opposed to promoting public health and well-being. Furthermore, the political elites do not perform a cost-benefit analysis of the effectiveness of the ACA to enable them to compromise on a bipartisan basis about the contentious issues contained in the law, such as the insurance mandates, Medicaid, insurance plans, and tax credits. NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

Analysis of Votes

Notably, the ACA resulted in a progressive American tax system whereby the wealthy individuals were obligated to pay higher federal taxes, 3.8% more on taxes on unearned income and a 0.9% increase in Medicare payroll taxes. The new tax revenue was earmarked to fund the expansions proposed by the ACA (Grogan, 2017). Additionally, the law delimited the out-of-pocket costs for marketplace insurance coverage, specifically $13,200 and $6,600 for family and individual plans (Grogan, 2017). The subsidies and financing options of ACA ensured equitable access to healthcare and lowered the financial burden of healthcare costs for the majority of low-income Americans. According to Congressional Budget Office, The Joint Committee on Taxation, and The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, repealing and replacing the ACA will increase Medicaid costs by over $370 billion over the next decade, which would be covered by the states (Grogan, 2017). Besides, eliminating tax directives will benefit the wealthiest people since they will be able to save almost $600 billion through 2026 (Grogan, 2017). Despite such cost-benefit analysis being conducted to determine the effect of repealing and replacing ACA, the legislators focus on their re-election prospects while discussing the merits and demerits of Obamacare. The lawmakers’ support for ACA must be consistent with the views of their electorates and donors. For instance, voting against the Act would have been contrary to the desires of most Republicans, and they risked losing their elective seats in the House or Senate.

Conclusion. It is evident that ACA not only resulted in national Medicaid expansions and subsidized Marketplace coverage, but it also reduced the cost of medical care and improved access to health services for patients in various age groups. These results would be what any leader would like to experience in their country, that is easy access to affordable and quality care for all people. Nevertheless, legislators would be willing to disregard these benefits to the society if all their chances of re-election would not be increased by them

supporting the ACA. It is on the same basis that members of Congress will make decisions on whether to reject or recommend national policies concerning Medicaid/Medicare. Politicians rely on donors and lobbyists for financial support to win their elections. In healthcare, these funders could be medical organizations that are negatively affected by the particular policy under deliberation. As such, to ensure that they continue to receive support from these agencies, legislators have to cater to the interest of their donor and vote to reject a policy that could otherwise, benefit the society. However, this does not mean that they do not believe passing such a proposal into law would be in the best interest of the public. The members of the U.S. Congress usually align with their left- or right-wing political affiliation and support legislations to appease their electorates, lobbyists, and sponsors purposely to ensure they retain their Senate or House seats as opposed to promoting public good in a bipartisan manner.

NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ON NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

References NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

Grogan, C. M. (2017). How the ACA addressed health equity and what repeal would mean. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law42(5), 985-993.

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Nadash, P., Miller, E. A., Jones, D. K., Gusmano, M. K., & Rosenbaum, S. (2018). A series of unfortunate events: implications of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act for older adults. Journal of Aging & Social Policy30(3-4), 259-281.

Main Question Post (edited, please use for grading)

Health Policy and Politics: The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), famously known as Obamacare, sought to enhance universal healthcare access by making health insurance to be inexpensive for all Americans. ACA targeted individual market, employer-provided benefits, and non-Medicare-eligible population to ensure they accessed affordable and comprehensive insurance coverage without any discrimination on the basis of their health status (Nadash, Miller, Jones, Gusmano, & Rosenbaum, 2018). The Republican Party seeks to stop government interference in the insurance market. It has spearheaded efforts to repeal and replace the ACA through the courts terming it as unconstitutional. Additionally, several states have shown open hostility to the law since it expanded the Medicaid coverage. Besides, House and Senate Republicans have sponsored several repeal initiatives such as Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) and Graham-Cassidy bills (Nadash et al., 2018). The constant onslaught of the ACA from President Trump and Republicans has led to an increase in premiums and several insurers withdrawing from selling the insurance plans in the recent past. The early success of the ACA, whereby millions of Americans secured insurance coverage through the individual markets, subsidies for low-income individuals, and Medicaid, have been eroded.

The Impact of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Milstead and Short (2019) argued that the supporters and critics of ACA include the members of Congress whose main objective is to be re-elected during the election cycles. The opponent’s debates and efforts to repeal and replacement of ACA in both President Obama’s and Trump’s administrations are deliberate for political expediency as opposed to promoting public health and well-being. Furthermore, the political elites do not perform a cost-benefit analysis of the effectiveness of the ACA to enable them to compromise on a bipartisan basis about the contentious issues contained in the law, such as the insurance mandates, Medicaid, insurance plans, and tax credits.

Analysis of Votes

Notably, the ACA resulted in a progressive American tax system whereby the wealthy individuals were obligated to pay higher federal taxes, 3.8% more on taxes on unearned income and a 0.9% increase in Medicare payroll taxes. The new tax revenue was earmarked to fund the expansions proposed by the ACA (Grogan, 2017). Additionally, the law delimited the out-of-pocket costs for marketplace insurance coverage, specifically $13,200 and $6,600 for family and individual plans (Grogan, 2017). The subsidies and financing options of ACA ensured equitable access to healthcare and lowered the financial burden of healthcare costs for the majority of low-income Americans. According to Congressional Budget Office, The Joint Committee on Taxation, and The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (as cited in Grogan, 2017), repealing and replacing the ACA will increase Medicaid costs by over $370 billion over the next decade, which would be covered by the states. Besides, eliminating tax directives will benefit the wealthiest people since they will be able to save almost $600 billion through 2026 (Grogan, 2017). Despite such cost-benefit analysis being conducted to determine the effect of repealing and replacing ACA, the legislators focus on their re-election prospects while discussing the merits and demerits of Obamacare. The lawmakers’ support for ACA must be consistent with the views of their electorates and donors. For instance, voting against the Act would have been contrary to the desires of most Republicans, and they risked losing their elective seats in the House or Senate.

Conclusion

 It is evident that ACA not only resulted in national Medicaid expansions and subsidized Marketplace coverage, but it also reduced the cost of medical care and improved access to health services for patients in various age groups. These results would be what any leader would like to experience in their country, that is easy access to affordable and quality care for all people. Nevertheless, legislators would be willing to disregard these benefits to the society if all their chances of re-election would not be increased by them supporting the ACA. It is on the same basis that members of Congress will make decisions on whether to reject or recommend national policies concerning Medicaid/Medicare. Politicians rely on donors and lobbyists for financial support to win their elections. In healthcare, these funders could be medical organizations that are negatively affected by the particular policy under deliberation. As such, to ensure that they continue to receive support from these agencies, legislators have to cater to the interest of their donor and vote to reject a policy that could otherwise, benefit the society. However, this does not mean that they do not believe passing such a proposal into law would be in the best interest of the public. The members of the U.S. Congress usually align with their left- or right-wing political affiliation and support legislations to appease their electorates, lobbyists, and sponsors purposely to ensure they retain their Senate or House seats as opposed to promoting public good in a bipartisan manner.

References NURS 6050 Discussion Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SAMPLE

Grogan, C. M. (2017). How the ACA addressed health equity and what repeal would mean. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law42(5), 985-

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Nadash, P., Miller, E. A., Jones, D. K., Gusmano, M. K., & Rosenbaum, S. (2018). A series of unfortunate events: implications of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act for older adults. Journal of Aging & Social Policy30(3-4), 259-281.

RE: Main Question Post (edited, please use for grading)

     The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was set in motion to help improve the health equity of persons in the United States. It is argued that the Trump administration has no set goal of improving health equity (Grogan, 2017). Grogan (2017) reports that the ACA proposed replacement will decrease the availability of healthcare coverage; low-income Americans will pay higher insurance premiums and remove the taxation on wealthy Americans, therefore, reducing the number of tax dollars for healthcare expenditures. Changes being proposed by the Trump administration could completely dissolve the efforts made by the ACA.  Grogan (2017) predicts if the repeal goes through, our country will be on the road to more significant health inequities and an increased amount of health disparities.

Politicians have to rely on others for financial support. Campaigns can cost millions of dollars. This money comes mostly from wealthy individuals, large organizations, or specialty groups that support the agenda or that will pay for the politician to promote their agenda. In the 2016 election cycle, I found it interesting that the healthcare sector contributed over 236,000,000 dollars, most of that to Republican parties (Milstead & Short, 2019). Although necessary to need financial contributions, I find that it is appalling that politicians would choose to support an agenda that risks the health of the American people, just for their monetary gain. Haselswerdt (2017) reports that poor health drains resources, time, and money. Americans spent 3.6 Trillion dollars in healthcare in 2018 (“Historical,” n.d.). It would seem that politicians would want to decrease the amount spent on healthcare and move to more preventative health, which would include persons being able to be insured.

Grogan, C. M. (2017). How the ACA Addressed Health Equity and What Repeal Would Mean. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 42(5), 985-993. https://doi-eor.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1215/03616878-3940508

Haselswerdt, J. (2017). Expanding Medicaid, Expanding the Electorate. The Affordable Care Act’s Short-Term Impact on Political Participation. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 42(4), 668-695. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1215/03616878-3856107

Historical. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2020, from https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide(6thed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 

Hi T

I think your post was very informative. The United States is leading in healthcare spending per capita, however; ranking only 37th in health outcomes as opposed to European counterparts (Nix, 2016). As advanced practice clinicians, the majority of us also agreed with the legislative intent to develop business models. Patient-centered, quality-focused, and cost-effective care is crucial to the survival of the healthcare organization in addition to access to proper health insurance.

To add to your statement, I agree that politicians do rely heavily on financial support. As they enter the race, asking for money requires a campaign organization focused on finding communicating with and cultivating supporters(Vavreck, 2015). Politicians gain supporters through their agendas for financial benefit. It is disturbing to me as well with all the money spent on healthcare, we still rank low in regard to health outcomes. Seems to me the bigger issues are not being proposed because the wealthy do not have the same issues or agendas as lower-class citizens of America. In order for Politicians to get re-elected, they must follow through their campaign with the same itineraries’ as financial lenders. More supporters, more money, more votes. Your post was refreshing to read because it gave an opinion outside of the norm.

References

Nix, T., & Szostek, L. (2016). Evolution of Physician-Centric Business Models Under the

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. ScholarWorks.

Vavreck, L. (2015, September 3). Why fund-raising is important, even if you are Trump. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/upshot/what-fund-raising-would-reveal-about-trumps-campaign.html

NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.