Introduction
In order to improve healthcare access and quality across the world, concerned governments have adopted several measures. The United States has maintained a leading position in promoting healthcare access among its citizens through adoption of ObamaCare. This healthcare Act promises to increase healthcare access among deprived population in the United States. Full implementation of the Affordable Care Act will be one of the greatest achievements of Obama’s Government. However, criticisms and opposition from politicians and researchers have marred this Act. Because of this opposition, most companies are yet to embrace this new amendment. In most companies, the workers remain unaware of the changes in healthcare law. The employers of the big companies feel the burden and may want to incorporate this additional expense in the employee’s salary so that they can purchase the policies for themselves. Also at risk is the pharmaceutical industry that will face strong competition form the Act, as most patients will prefer the care because of affordability.
Despite strong opposition from companies, ACA can make healthcare insurance affordable for many permanent employees. The beginning of its implementation of the healthcare plan will not signal an end to the debate, but rather a start of endless back and forth argument between proponents and opponents as established from several studies (Nanda, 2013; Nix, 2010; Philip, 2009; Ponnuru & Levin, 2010; Shay & Mick, 2013; Souter & Gurevitz, 2012; Sowell, 2013). Therefore, in order to emerge successful, national healthcare department should take responsibility for ensuring that Obamacare is accessible and affordable.
Affordable Healthcare Act
According to Crissey (2013), most companies are yet to embrace this new amendment. In most companies, he says, the workers are unaware of the changes in healthcare law. The employers of the big companies feel the burden and may want to incorporate this additional expense in the employee’s salary, so they can purchase the policies for themselves. However, the act does not offer an alternative for workers who have less than 30 working hours per week. Most part-time employees will not have access to the insurance cover. To evade the huge enrollment penalties, most companies can opt to reduce the number of working hours per employee to below thirty. Other companies with more than 50 permanently employed workers - “big companies” - can opt to reduce the number of workers to reduce the penalty since it is calculated per number of permanently employed workers. These foreseeable repercussions have found the act stagnating, with many organizations unwilling to adopt it. Eight of the States within the US are also reluctant, and have not confirmed their participation in the plan.
Hoping that the companies embrace these current reforms positively, all permanent and part-time permanent employees will benefit from the scheme. They will be able to secure healthcare insurance to cover themselves and their children. However, most of the population will not be covered since they do not qualify as permanent workers. This will mean that they will have to pay for their insurance privately or otherwise, and the government will hold them responsible for doing this and will prosecute them if they fail to meet this obligation. If some of the states fail to implement the universal health reform, some workers will not benefit from it (Souter, 2012). Plans by employers with more than 100 employees to take out multiple insurance plans for their workers may be more feasible in the near future.
The enactment of this bill has resulted in an increase in Medicare tax of about 0.9% on incomes and an additional 3.8% on unearned incomes. These increased taxes are likely to lead to more opposition to the bill by the citizens. Pharmaceutical investors will experience a reduction in sales if employees buy the insurance policies. The issue of inequality in offering subsidies to the workers between the 133% and 400% poverty levels who are not insured by their companies is a cause for concern. According to Nix (2010), this would bring inequality to persons in the same wage bracket.
Literature Review
This section contains a broad literature review by revisiting significant studies previously conducted on Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA); alternatively referred as Obama care. Given the ever changing perception on the issue of healthcare policy, the information contained in this review is subject to constant review. In future researches, this information may be less relevant and may require updating with recent literature.
Several recent studies have contributed to the debate surrounding the Affordable Healthcare Act (Souter & Gurevitz, 2012). The aim of some researchers is aimed at disregarding the act as undesirable, highly costly, and unbeneficial to the US economy (Souter &Gurevitz, 2012). However, Souter and Gurevitz (2012) develop a different opinion in a study. According to these authors, affordable Care Act is a turning point for the United States healthcare policy. Souter and Gurevitz add that, although several amendments and extensions have been made to various laws that jointly constitute to the United States legal context, the act promotes rudimentary legal protections that have not previously existed. The new act, comparable to the Universal Healthcare Act, guarantees access to inexpensive healthcare insurance cover for every individual irrespective of his or her age and income level. After full implementation, Nanda (2013) explains that the Act will increase the number of insured US citizens by more than 50 percent. This regulation will promote healthcare coverage for more than 90 percent of the United States population, increasing the insured by more than 35 million while enhancing 16 million to access Medicaid. According to the approximation provided by Nanda, this cover is incapable of protecting all the Americans. Phillip insists that despite the government’s effort in promoting accessible healthcare, more than 20 million Americans will remain without access to healthcare.
In his research, Huntoon (2011) uncovers the benefits of Universal Healthcare. The author understands that the United States universal health care is beneficial because it has proved advantageous in several developed economies such as United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada. Nevertheless, he explains that there are variations in universal healthcare acts implemented in these economies. For example, Canada lacks the private insurance systems, forcing all citizens to contribute to the scheme. Sowell (2013) agrees that United States is the only economy whereby not every citizen is guaranteed healthcare. Although vast revenue is spent on healthcare, the system relies on a private citizen’s ability to pay to the system. The universal healthcare system eliminates this inequality, creating a situation similar to Canada, whereby all persons can access healthcare irrespective of their age or income bracket. The writer also points out that implementation of a universal healthcare system would eliminate the paperwork that characterizes the current system. Nanda (2013) argues that the present healthcare plan requires every patient to fill medical records in order to make a claim to the insurer. However, the author praises the Affordable Care Act as more beneficial because it integrates electronic records that are less costly to maintain, retrieve, and sort.
Phillip (2009) takes a different approach by exploring the benefits of the affordable Care Act on the healthcare industry and providers. According to Phillip, the act hinders innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. MacKinnon (2013) adds that the government, which would control the universal care, will mismanage the fund. The fact that social programs such as Medicaid and Medicare are on the brink of bankruptcy because of mismanagement, informs these fears. Sowell (2013) revisits the political debate surrounding the Obama care. The politics surrounding the ACA debate is accompanied by a debate that makes the Act appear insignificant and a misuse to public funds. The decision to pass the bill, according to Ponnuru and Levin, was a political move aimed at scoring political support. Ponnuru and Levin explain that the two sides made wrong assumptions prior to the passing of the law. From one perspective, the Democrats feared that if the bill failed it would condemn plunge them into a political abyss, and the President would face a tough task when seeking re-election. From another perspective, the Republicans also feared that if the bill passed they would have had lost the war in the healthcare sector. In conclusion, Ponnuru and Levin establish that the beginning of the implementation of the healthcare plan will not signal an end to the debate but rather a start of endless back and forth argument between proponents and opponents. However, this Act was marred by criticisms while presenting the Republicans with an opportunity to make it an issue in subsequent elections by pointing out flaws in the legislation. However, Ponnuru and Levin agree with Shay and Mick (2013) that the ACA would have significant impacts on the business sector. The arguments presented in the two articles are similar, with respondents agreeing that the cost implications of Obamacare may threaten the business sector.
Conclusion
References
Bailey, W. (2013). The Effect of the Affordable Care Act on Charitable Hospitals. CPA Journal, 83(5): 57-62.
Crissey, J. (2013). Are you ready for Obamacare? Commercial Carrier Journal, 170(6): 6.
Fischer, A. (2013). Resolving Healthcare Issues in Compliance With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Journal of Business Case Studies, 9(6): 449-456.
Huntoon, K. (2011). Healthcare Reform and the Next Generation: United States Medical Student Attitudes toward the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Paul. PLoS ONE, 6(9): 1-7.
MacKinnon I. (2013). Recognizing pharmacists as healthcare providers-a solution for the Protection and Affordable Care Act rollout. Formulary, 48(9): 300-302.
Nanda, U. (2013). The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Healthcare Design. Contract, 54(8): 84-85.
Nix, K. (2010). Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is a Disaster. Human Events. Vol 66 (14): 15.
Philip T. W. (2009). The pros and cons of Universal Health Care in The United States. Brazen Life, Retrieved March 22, 2013. Available from: http://blog.brazencareerist.com/2009/06/09/the-pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-in-the-united-states/
Ponnuru, R., & Levin, Y. (2010). Obamacare: Act II. National Review, 62(1): 16-18.
Shay, P. D. & Mick S. S. (2013). Post-Acute Care and Vertical Integration after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Journal of Healthcare Management, 58(1): 15-27.
Souter, P. D., & Gurevitz, J. (2012). Health and Taxes: What Obamacare Now Means for Employers. Financial Executive, 28(7): 54-57.
Sowell, T. (2013). Affordable Healthcare Act is just another old 'new' program. Enterprise/Salt Lake City, 43(13): 14-15.
