There has been a large debate in Washington D.C. on how effective the Affordable Cares Act has been in revitalizing America’s healthcare ecosystem. There were many reasons to implement the ACA and one of the reasons that stood out to me the most was the idea that the United States placed dead last among developed countries in terms of mortality rate. The United States spends more than twice the amount than the rest of the world combined on healthcare but yet our nation still has a very low life expectancy. People generally come and think of America as the best place to get healthcare due to the technological advances our country has made in healthcare. However, to access these benefits, one would either have to shell out a lot of money or get lucky and have their provider give them the service that they were looking for. With the ACA, we move one step closer to a healthier society.
For example, before the ACA, hospitals were losing a lot of money because they had an overflow of emergency room patients and not enough people were making time to see their doctors regularly on a yearly basis. In addition, since the hospitals were not able to get money out of the emergency-room patients due to lack of financial status of the patient, hospitals would charge those who had insurances higher costs to balance the money being lost from the uninsured patients. That effect then raises the premium for the individual with the insurance and they end up having to pay for those without insurances.
With universal healthcare, the predicament listed above ends. Everyone will be mandated to have health insurance and hospitals will be able to save generate more money from patients. I do not believe that the quality of healthcare would go down in this world but rather everyone would have access to the healthcare technologies that currently exist. Healthcare should not be limited to one socioeconomic group because all people should have equal rights in terms of care in my opinion.
Another major part of the new healthcare reform is a greater emphasis on preventative care. Great Britain has less than half the U.S. budget on healthcare but they do not focus on spending money to develop drugs. Britain focuses their money on developing preventative medicine policies so that they can stop disease earlier in its cycle in order to prevent spread of the disease. I believe that U.S. can be smarter with how it utilizes its funds and continue to build upon the foundation the new healthcare reform has set up.
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Brody and T. Engelhard, “Access to Health Care,” Bioethics: Readings and Cases
You raised great points in this assessment of the ACA. I think this is an example of what should the floor be in terms of health care that we were discussing when talking about egalitarianism. If we were able to raise the floor and make it so individuals basic health could be at a higher standard then there would be significantly less people going to the ER for minor issues. This could even limit the amount of major issues general poor health can lead to serious illnesses that could have been prevented or controlled. I agree that changes needs to be made and it ultimately will because we cannot sustain the spending that we are doing. Unfortunately, there will be massive resistance because there are so many powerful, independent parties involved, such as private insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The system we live in today likes when its patients are sick. If we are all healthy then no one buys services or spends as much, but if we are in a state of episodic illness then we are spending a lot of money. Our population is aging and chronic diseases are more prevalent than infectious ones. There needs to be a transformation in the way everyone thinks about health and healthcare.
Ahyan –
I appreciate your approach and analysis of the ACA’s policies in United States social repercussions. I think it is also necessary to analyze the public misunderstanding of and sense of autonomous violation when discussing this issue. To keep it one sided and only show how things would be solved by fully accepting the ACA would be denying adequate interpretation of the historical sense of choice in this country with respect to the care one receives during their lifetime.
Aside from that, you make very good points outlining the social benefit of such policies. When discussing the best possible solution for problems like the overflowing of costly emergency room visits, the best solution would be a social measure that offers preventative options beforehand.
The debate and politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act is one that represents a clash of ideology. On one end, there are people who feel with strong conviction that ACA is a violation of their freedom and their liberty to decide. On the other end, there are people who feel that healthcare should be provided for all even if it comes at the expense of some degree of autonomy. In your blog post, you raise several points about why ACA can improve the American healthcare system by a) improving the quality/access and b) making it more cost-efficient. However, these points are unlikely to change the minds of the opposition because they don’t effectively address the historical context, ideology, ethics of a government-run healthcare system. Despite the fact that ACA is more cost-effective in the long-run, many of those in the opposition continue to reject it because it does align with the principle they value the most–autonomy. Those in the opposition that are against ACA capitalize on the fear of American citizens by illustrating ACA as some “socialist evil creation” that will strip them of their freedom. A really effective argument for ACA would be one that could reconcile these clashing views, alleviate people of their inherent fear, and prove that one course of action is more ethical than the other. I’m not sure if that is possible or how it could be done, but I feel that it would be more convincing.
I believe that Ahyan brings up some very interesting points in this post as there is a constant debate over the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, I do believe some of the ideas presented are not entirely realistic, although they seem idealistic. I believe people would feel as though their autonomous rights have been violated. For example, if every single person in the United States had access to healthcare, how would people from different classes be treated when they showed up to the hospital – would people who had more money to their name be treated first while those who didn’t were pushed to the back of the line? Would different hospitals and health care centers exist for the different classes?