Was the PPACA healthcare reform ("Obamacare") good? Pros and cons
Source: Composite image by G_marius
The PPACA, known as "Obamacare", was both heavily criticised and strongly defended. Do the pros of this reform outweighed its cons? Was President Trump right repealing it? Vote and discuss!
Repeal of Obamacare
On May 4 2017, the Republican House passed a bill to repeal the Patient Protection Care the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the "Obamacare". President Trump made the repeal of Obamacare one of his central campaign promises. After much congressional struggle the opponents of the law seem to have scored a major victory by narrowly approving legislation to replace major parts of the Affordable care act.
Since its enactment in March 2010, Obamacare has been one of the most discussed policy issues during the past Obama administration. It also became one of the central issues during the 2016 presidential campaign. This reform meant a significant overhaul of the US healthcare system. It sought to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance. However, "ObamaCare" was both heavily criticised and strongly defended. Pharmaceutical companies, private health organizations, insurance companies, politicians and citizens have all debated whether this reform will be good or bad for the US.
Citizens were divided because they know this reform had an asymmetrical impact on their lives according to their socio-economic status and medical conditions. Some people claimed that PPACA saved their lives, other that because of Obamacare many private insurance policies were cancelled putting into jeopardy their healthcare. The success in terms of enrollment in the program, produced a decrease in more than 16.4 millions the number of uninsured Americans. However, the popular support for Obamacare was not pervasive due to some of the side effects is also triggered. We discuss here some of its advantages and disadvantages of Obamacare below and invite you to vote and participate on our discussion forum sharing your ideas and perceptions.
Pros and cons of Obamacare
Pros of Obamacare were:
- It gives access to affordable, high-quality health insurance to millions of people who previously could not afford it.
- It helps reduce the number of people accessing the emergency room (ununsured people used to go to the hospital for their primary medical needs).
- It focuses on prevention, therefore reducing the number of expensive treatments in the long run.
- It increases the number of families qualifying for Medicaid and allows tax credits to the families who don't.
- It gives more protection to children, as they cannot be denied coverage for preexisting health conditions.
- There may be a period of great uncertainty for patients after the repeal of Obamacare until a clear alternative is implemented.
These are some of its cons:
- Some of the measures such as preventing testing and care are very expensive and may imply a huge increase in medical spending in the next few years.
- In order to finance Obamacare, taxes were increased on people with higher revenues and some deductions have been reduced.
- Medical companies and pharmaceutical companies were supposed to pay more taxes, which could likely make the price of drugs and medical services increase.
- The price of insurance policies would also increase to compensate the new coverages.
- The end of the Affordable Care Act creates a window of opportunity for new more imaginative solutions to American healthcare system problem.
What do you think about the Obamacare. Are you among its supporters or detractors? Why? Do you find problematic the PPACA concept or its implementation? Should the next government push this agenda further or make a u-turn?
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
1224 xp
250 posts
The only sentence in that post that is in any way correct is the first one; because it states a truism. Let's look at the rest.
"There is no instance in which a government has run a health care program more efficiently than the private sector." That's a lie. The cost comparisons show pooled, state-run healthcare systems routinely offer lower costs and/or better coverage than private ones.
"The only way government-managed health care manages to address rising health costs is by limiting the availability of certain treatments". Lie. All systems limit coverage, private-run ones are far worse at limiting coverage. There is no way unlimited healthcare costs can be covered so they aren't; safety-net and emergency healthcare is what is covered.
"nor does it eventually manage to contain heath care costs." Lie. Costs under private healthcare regimes are normally higher than state-run ones.
"The best way to ensure people can access adequate health care is to privilege market-based solutions with provisions for those who genuinely cannot afford it e.g. establish tax-free medical savings accounts (100% deductible if you don't have or cannot afford one), massively deregulate the industry (i.e. drive competition)" Lies all 'round. It's the worst way to run a health system as seen by the rankings around the world; 'privilege' tells you the game needs to be rigged in their favour; savings accounts are a scam to let finance companies rip you off; deregulation is what causes costs to rise more than any other factor apart from the profit motive; all-in-all this libertarian nightmare of a political press release from Karl should frighten the hell out of anyone who shares a country with people who think like this.
Hundreds of years of experience has demonstrated time and time again that corporate, market-driven solutions produce far worse health results for far higher costs than pooled risk methods of providing basic health cover. Evidence below;
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/universal_health_coverage/report/2015/en/
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
https://ideas.repec.org/p/occ/wpaper/2.html
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/private_health_plans_versus_social_insurance.php
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/06/01/17426/best-health-care-system-world-nonsense
1360 xp
344 posts
Free healthcare is never free. There is no instance in which a government has run a health care program more efficiently than the private sector. The only way government-managed health care manages to address rising health costs is by limiting the availability of certain treatments, which i am sure we'd agree, is not an acceptable principle, nor does it eventually manage to contain heath care costs. The best way to ensure people can access adequate health care is to privilege market-based solutions with provisions for those who genuinely cannot afford it e.g. establish tax-free medical savings accounts (100% deductible if you don't have or cannot afford one), massively deregulate the industry (i.e. drive competition)
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
