The affordable health care act passed by Obama administration in 2010 aimed at addressing issues concerning the health care system. This initiative targeted the guaranteed provision of medical insurance to millions of Americans. The main intention of the act was to expand medical care and provide subsidies to the low and middle income Americans hence extending the insurance cover. Additionally, because of the passing of the act, all American citizens could afford to buy private coverage insurance. In this regard, a relationship would exist between the potential consumers of insurance and the insurers concerning the acquisition of the policies. At the same time, there would be no selection by the insurers due to the established pre-existing conditions. The approach through which this act would become effective is by creating a panel of experts to oversee the provision of subsidies for all medical care providers (Gruber 46). Moreover, the experts would check for the consolidation of the services offered by insurers rather than by the individual procedure of negotiations. This implies there would be uniformity in the medical policies offered by insurance. In this regard, it is estimated that the radical change in the health care system would cost about a trillion dollars over a period of ten years as depicted by the non-partisan congressional budget office.
Because of the passing of the act, there have been controversial debates concerning its benefits and demerits from an economical and social point of view. In this regard, the affordable care act has been presented to the Supreme Court for repeal. Considering that the driving force of the implementation was political, most people seem to disagree with the benefits that the act is meant to offer (Jacobs 112). Nevertheless, the proponents of the act believe that there are enormous benefits that would accrue after its full implementation. The benefits observed include enhanced means of access to medical care services and reduced cost of insurance covers for the American citizens. This act stipulates that medical practitioners will offer the best medical services in the interest of the public. It considers that since medical practitioners would become significantly motivated by increased monetary rewards, they will become more enthusiastic in their work. Concerning the public, the access to medical care services will become significantly uncomplicated and convenient. At the same time, all citizens will receive non-discriminatory medical services. Similarly, regarding the insurance providers, the provision of medical covers would become simpliied and flexible since all citizens would access such services at reduced costs. This implies that insurers would reduce the selection of those insured on the grounds of their financial stability hence the moderation of insurance services. Another crucial consideration is that most citizens would increase their savings since medical covers would become affordable. After the consideration of these multiple benefits, the government accepted the passing and implementation of the act (Nather 94). Later, the presentation of the act at the Supreme Court for repeal was rejected.
Contrary to the anticipated benefits accrued from the implementation of the act, multiple adverse effects would be witness because of the act. In this regard, some citizens feel that the act should be repeal by the Supreme Court based on their conceptions of the act. It is anticipated that the Act will compel the health care costs to become extremely higher. Analytically, economists claim that the act would force insurers to increase the costs of their services since they would be on a significantly high demand (Starr 184). The government would have to save a lot of money in order to meet the provision of subsidies to health providers. Concerning the doctors, a considerable number be forced exit the market since health care would become more of a public utility than a business venture. This lack of motivation would create a shortage of doctors adversely affecting the provision of health care. For the government to ensure the success of the Act, it would be necessitated to increase the level of taxes in order to cover the cost of subsidy provision. Additionally, the effectiveness of the Act would demand the recruitment of experienced personnel to monitor, guide, and ensure its appropriate execution. This process will demand a significant amount of funds, which will lead to increased cost of living for the ordinary citizens (Gruber 154). Considering the adverse effects of the act, most citizens feel that it is necessary to repeal the act since its implementation is an irreversible decision.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court should repeal the affordable care act. Concerning the Obama administration, much attention was given to benefits that would be derived from the Act without a thorough counterchecking of the dire consequences, which may emanate after its implementation. Considering that the bill has been an ongoing tussle for the democrats over time, the Obama administration battled for its implementation simply to portray the democrats’ political supremacy. In this regard, the act seeks to address the various iissues in a liberal manner, but fails to consider the outcomes of its implementation. By addressing the means of realizing an affordable health care, the act enhances loopholes for the insurers and medical practitioners to exploit the citizens. For the bureaucrats, the act provides an opportunity to increase the income taxes to facilitate the implementation of the policy. Nevertheless, the act attempts to create a balance of wealth distribution through the initiation of the uniform health care access which is rather difficult and impractical (Nather 132).
After the implementation of the act, there is a high possibility that the health care system of America would be in chaos. This would be witnessed considering that the majority of doctors would exit the market since their venture would no longer be profitable. The influencing factors of this anticipated trend are the lack of motivation and low returns from such business. Regardless of the government’s claim that it would provide incentives to the health care providers uniformly, non-uniformity in the provision of health care services would create negative effects. On this note, most citizens would receive substandard health care services hence resulting in the public’s non-satisfaction and outcry (Jacobs 185). At such point, the government would face multiple problems if there were the need to reverse the act due to the huge financial implications. Additionally it is observed that because of the initiative of the act, most illegal immigrants would take advantage of the system and exploit such opportunities. Considering these outcomes of the act, there is the need for the Supreme Court to repeal the act. Alternatively, if the Supreme Court cannot succeed in repealing of the act, amendments should be made to prevent the exposure of American citizens to such dire consequences.
Based on the citizens’ influence in the implementation of the act, the success of the act would encounter numerous barriers. This implies that the claimed beneficiaries would not realize the effective contributions of the act. On this note, the government funds would be misappropriated, and this is likely to create more calamities within the ruling regime. Despite the reasonable anticipated benefits, any incentive by the government should receive sufficient support from the citizens as to warrant its success (Starr 212). Because of the alarming opposition encountered after its inception, the implementation of the act would definitely not succeed. In this regard, there are sufficient reasons as to why the Supreme Court should repeal the act.