The Patient Care Act Proposal: The Cassidy-Collins Bill On March 23,2010 former President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to by its nickname: Obamacare. This law would ideally offer all U.S. citizens the opportunity to obtain health insurance at a decent and affordable rate. There were many other incentives that came along with this law being passed. While it was well received by some, there were many whom opposed this law. A great portion of the GOP (republican party) were very vocal in opposition to this law, and desired to have it repealed all together. With the recent election of newly elected President Donald Trump, they would see this realization come to pass. While there …show more content…
has been much discussion about the repeal of the ACA, a bigger issue was at hand: What would the GOP propose to replace the law they sought to repeal? Two senators (Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine), drafted a plan that could serve as a starting point for conversations on how to replace Obamacare. This bill, referred to as the Cassidy-Collins bills, would give the power back to the states. If accepted, the Cassidy-Collins bill would give states three options: Keep the Affordable Care Act, receive most of the federal funding promised under Obamacare, or reject any federal assistance and design an alternative solution for health care. Keep the Affordable Care Act The first option of the Cassidy-Collins bill is for states, if desired, to keep the Affordable Care Act.
This option would allow states to reinstate Title I of the ACA and continue to receive premium tax credits, cost-sharing subsidies and Medicaid funding from the federal government (Becker’s hospital review, 2017). As a result, low in residents would be eligible for federal subsidies to cover the cost of coverage (USA Today, 2017). Since its implementation, "20-plus million people now have healthcare...that didn't have it," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) (WTOK, 2017). As well, states that expanded Medicaid, a state-federal health program for the poor would be able to maintain that expansion (USA Today, 2017). To date, 32 states, including D.C., have expanded Medicaid, resulting in large enrollments into the Medicaid program, and The sharp declines in uninsured rates among the low-income population (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017). However, even with the positive results yielded by the ACA, some states may desire to go a different …show more content…
route. For states that decide not to keep the Obamacare, they would still be eligible to receive most of the federal funding promised under the Obamacare act. What exactly does this intel? According to the Patient Care Act: “The State could continue to receive funding equal to 95% of federal premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies, as well as the federal match for Medicaid expansion. States can choose to receive funds in the form of per beneficiary grants or advanceable, refundable tax credits, but in both cases, funds will be deposited in a Roth Health Savings Account (HSA), meaning the money will go directly to the patient.” (www.cassidy.senate.gov, 2017). This option would provide financial assistance to legal U.S. residents who are not currently receiving insurance through an employer or public programs, such as Medicaid or Medicare. With the basic health plan, eligible individuals would receive a Roth Health Savings Account, which consist of a high deductible health plan, and a basic pharmacy plan. Each state that decides to go with this option would receive the same level of funding as if it were under the ACA if 95% of those eligible for the subsidies enroll. Additionally, the enrolled states would receive the money that would have been paid for a Medicaid expansion. Residents are able to purchase a robust plan if they desire, without the ACA’s restrictive mandates. The options available, however, would not likely be as affordable, but individuals would have the freedom to pick a plan that best suits their specific needs. The third option allows states to reject any federal assistance and design an alternative solution for health care.
This option gives complete control back to the states to design and regulate insurance markets that is ideal for their state’s population without the assistance of the federal government(www.cassidy.senate.gov, 2017). Funding would, of course, come from those whom are eligible and able to purchase health care for themselves and/or their families. Some of the ACA consumer protections would still be in place with this option. These key protections include the
following: ¥ The ban on insurers imposing lifetime or annual limits on the benefits they pay out ¥ The requirement on insurers to cover dependents under age 26 ¥ The ban on insurers excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions, unless the person with a pre-existing condition failed to maintain continuous coverage ¥ The ban against health status discrimination, unless the person with a pre-existing condition failed to maintain continuous coverage ¥ The requirement on insurers to cover mental health care ¥ The ban on discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, or disability (Center for American Progress, 2017). This could potentially allow the people the right to choose what insurance company works best for them. To those opposed to the ACA, this would be most beneficial as they wouldn’t be obligated to accept the laws that were set in place by the Obamacare policy. With the proposal of the Cassidy-Collins bill, the senate and more importantly, the state legislation will have some tough decisions to make. Should this bill be accepted by the senate, and the president, the state legislations will be empowered once again to make a decision that best suits it population. For some states, where the ACA has been beneficial, they would have the option to continue on with the laws that are in place. For others, where it hasn’t been as successful, they’ll have two options: to come up with an alternative plan where they receive government assistance and a few of the benefits that are covered under the ACA, or they could scrap it altogether and start from scratch without any federal assistance. Ultimately, the power would be given back to the states to determine the fates of their population’s health care moving forward.
“Americans without insurance coverage will be able to choose the insurance coverage that works best for them in a new open, competitive insurance market – the same insurance market that every member of Congress will be required to use for their insurance. The insurance exchange will pool buying power and give Americans new affordable choices of private insurance plans that have to compete for their business based on cost and quality. Small business owners will not only be able to choose insurance coverage through this exchange, but will receive a new tax credit to help offset the cost of covering their employees.
The aim of affordable care act (ACA) was to extend health insurance coverage to around 15% of US population who lack it. These include people with no coverage from their employers and don’t have coverage by US health programs like Medicaid (Retrieved from, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act/). To achieve this, the law required all Americans to have health insurance which is a reason of controversy because, it was inappropriate intrusion of government into the massive health care industry and insult to personal liberty. To make health care more affordable subsidies are offered and the cost of the insurance was supposed to be reduced by bringing younger, healthier people to the health insurance system. This could be controversial, if older, sicker people who need the coverage most enter the market but younger group decline to do so. The insurance pool will be unbalanced and the cost of coverage will rise correspondingly.
The leadership’s decision not to expand Medicaid leaves between 300,000 and 400,000 South Carolinians without health insurance (South Carolina Medical Association, 2012). The stated intent of the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively dubbed “Obamacare” by its critics, was to put affordable health care within reach of more of the 40 million Americans who lacked health insurance. The law’s grand design included an assumption that states would expand their Medicaid programs, since the federal government would pay 100 percent of the expansion costs through 2016, and 90 percent thereafter. But in demonstrating its traditional mistrust of Washington’s promises, Columbia declined the offer and, in the process, left thousands of low-income workers without the means to obtain health coverage, either because they cannot afford the premiums or because their employers do not provide it. (Advisory Committee, 2013). Ironically, in a state where the median annual income is $44,600, South Carolina’s working poor earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid; however, they would be covered under the ACA model (Hailsmaier and Blasé, 2010).
The topic that I am choosing to do is on Obama Care. I chose this topic because the idea of the government forcing people to obtain insurance is wrong in my eyes. I am interested in analyzing the validity for what has been said about this topic in order to increase my understanding about Obama Care. I am not an expert when it comes to Obama Care. I know that this is an insurance that is being provided through the government for the general public. I have read that President Obama never initially read the whole bill itself. I also know that people who cannot afford it, but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid are being heavily encouraged to get this insurance. Some of the common knowledge that I have found that the general public has about this subject is that some people are for Obama Care and think that it is a wonderful idea and that there are some people that are dead set against Obama Care. Younger adults, specifically college age and individuals that are in their twenties tend to be for Obama Care. The insurance is being forced upon individuals that may or may not want it. It also seems as though that the insurance being offered is pretty generic in terms of coverage. Some of the questions that I have that I believe will aide me in writing this paper would be the following: What are the pros and cons of Obama Care? What are the thoughts of Obama Care with the people of the government? As well as what are the basics of Obama Care?
I am terribly ashamed to admit that prior to this class I really did not have a position on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I simply ignored what was going on because I had insurance through my employer and I didn’t feel like the ACA would have that much bearing on my life. I was aware of some of the positive and negative aspects but had not really given it all a lot of thought. The one thing that did intrigue and interest me was the potential for Medicaid expansion. This was both exciting and troublesome because my job is totally structured around people who qualify for Medicaid. Increasing the rosters would have had a drastic effect on what I do and would have meant tremendous growth for my business but since Tennessee opted not to expand
The federal uniform health care system should be based on Texas not the other way around. With a universal rate system that will soon be implemented the government is forcing insurance companies to sell their health part of the company just to exit the market. Texas must oppose Obamacare by enacting our own alterations that will increase health insurance competition and thus driving down cost. Texas officials need to lower market entry to start up health insurance companies to help promote competition. A uniform healthcare system might be priced lower bu...
One of the most controversial topics in the United States in recent years has been the route which should be undertaken in overhauling the healthcare system for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. It is important to note that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to make healthcare affordable; it provides low-cost, government-subsidized insurance options through the State Health Insurance Marketplace (Amadeo 1). Our current president, Barack Obama, made it one of his goals to bring healthcare to all Americans through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This plan, which has been termed “Obamacare”, has come under scrutiny from many Americans, but has also received a large amount of support in turn for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include a decrease in insurance discrimination on the basis of health or gender and affordable healthcare coverage for the millions of uninsured. The opposition to this act has cited increased costs and debt accumulation, a reduction in employer healthcare coverage options, as well as a penalization of those already using private healthcare insurance.
In the early years of 2009 to 2010 the political process pushed health care through legislation led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Health care and government, 2013). This process was extraordinarily tiring, as many defenders of the bills passing were present. Many congressional members “dug their heels in”, and wanted to slow down the process even more as confusion about the bill was posed (Health care and government, 2013). Despite opposition by many sides of the American people, a Democrat-dominated House of Representatives passed the bill and the Affordable Care Act was signed into action on March 21, 2010 (Hogberg, 2013). Indeed, all three branches of government were instrumental with the passing the Affordable Care Act into place.
As part of the Affordable Care Act, beginning this year Medicaid will expand eligibility to include all uninsured individuals under the age of 65 whose incomes fall at or below 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, or about $32,500 for a family of four. However, the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law also allowed states more flexibility concerning what parts of the ACA they can implement and said that those same states would not lose federal funding for their existing programs. This result would leave the decision to opt out of the law's provision into the hands of state legislators. While twenty-six states have chosen to expand healthcare coverage, twenty-one states have not and four have yet to make a decision. The state of Florida is among those not seeking to expand coverage and that decision alone could cost Florida millions of dollars a year in tax penalties. As conservative and liberal state lawmakers square off into a maelstrom of debate over whether Medicaid should cover more people, thousands of uninsured Floridians will be caught in the crossfire.
Above all, if all states have decide to follow through ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion they will conjointly pay $76 billion to insure up to 21.3 Million individuals who don't have access to health insurance for over the next decade. Regardless of what state, the federal government will help pay for 93% of the state cost of healthcare. Medicaid Expansion is a great way to help families below the federal poverty line get insurance and stay healthy. Without it, they will fall between the cracks forcing them to use Obamacare. In that case, it is projected to drive up cost of insurance for Americans.
The author also believes that the Medicaid expansion extends beyond the politics, and has an aim to impact the life, health, and financial stability for the state and individuals. Medicaid expansion can be beneficial to many countries that have a large proportion of low-income people that are uninsured and or with disabilities. This can aid in saving the state money because much of the cost is provided and covered by the federal government, that encourages healthier behavior and results to a reduction in chronic disease due to lower health care costs. Although Texas opted out in adopting the expansion, legislators should decide on the advantage and disadvantage of participating in the Medicaid expansion to improve the welfare of the state. The expansion of Medicaid coverage will give low-income pregnant women the chance to reduce the rate in infant mortality and provide an opportunity for those that were unable to get coverage to be
Health care reform was a major part of President Obama’s campaign when he was first running back in 2008. The primary objectives of the reform are to provide healthcare coverage for all uninsured Americans and decrease the costs of healthcare services and coverage.
The main advantage of the Affordable Care Act is that it lowers health care costs overall by making insurance affordable for more people. First, it wi...
“From the very beginning…. Obama’s message was not that the law would result in higher premiums, but better coverage. It was that the law would lower premiums, end of story” (Roy). Yet another promise has found itself broken after the ACA came into the sunlight of reality. “His $1 trillion in tax increases [hit] the middle class hard…” Mitt Romney said, “… in the health care system I envision, costs will be brought under control not because a board of bureaucrats decrees it but because everyone- providers, insurers, and patients –has incentives to do it” Unfortunately, that isn’t how it is. The nation is being forced into healthcare or being penalized for not joining the masses, because this plan will only work if there’s enough healthy people paying their newly doubled premiums regularly to help offset the expenses the unhealthy have right of the bat. “Back when Obamacare was being debated in Congress, Democrats claimed that it was right-wing nonsense that premiums would go up under Obamacare” (Roy). It’s now obvious that right-wing was headed in the right direction, and the middle class was
What is managed care? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, managed care is “a system of health care in which patients agree to visit only certain doctors and hospitals, and in which the cost of treatment is monitored by a managing company.” Managed care is a variety of techniques designed to reduce the cost of providing health benefits and advance the quality of care. In the United States alone, there are various managed care programs, that are ranged from more restrictive to less restrictive. As stated in the National Institutes of Health, the future of managed care is uncertain. It is enthralling to note that in spite of the advances in healthcare systems, such as our hospital’s ability to provide patients with lower cost, managed