Politics is a game of the struggle for favoritism but hides under the cost-benefit analysis
for economic stabilization while legislators are systematically seeking for chances of re-election
without minding what effect the policy enacted will have on the citizens such as changes to
Obamacare or Medicare and Medicaid (Milstead & Short, 2019, P.40). The efforts to
repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) directs toward favoritism for the wealthy
Americans giving room to inequality of access to health care coverage. However, the ACA
positioned the working class citizens to pay for the health coverage of lower-class individuals
through tax premium credit. Given maximization for re-election, the current administration as
part of Tax cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the penalty set forth by ACA on uninsured individuals will
no longer be effective in 2019 (Kaiser, 2019).
It is noteworthy to understand that ACA was a redistributive Act that uses public
resources obtained via higher taxes on high-income earning Americans to give access to health
care among the lower-income citizens including those excluded from employer-based insurance,
non-college degree holders, those without a job, and the very low-income earners (Griffith et al.,
2017). In agreement with Feldstein, (2006), the current administration is using legislative power
to propose repeal/replace the ACA initiative to their favor versus in favor of the society in
general. The repeal/replacement of ACA aims at reducing subsidies for Medicaid expansion as
well as those in a low-income bracket which invariably may create an increased gap between
upper-class and lower income-class Americans thus, defeating the aim of ACA (Griffith et al.,
2017).
Although analysis of cost-benefit calculation is mostly to benefit the legislators and not to
the cost-benefits to the society of enacting appropriate legislation, however, legislators with such
self-interest in most cases tend to create policy in equilibrium with national interest for re-
election and historical legacy. In support of this statement, Donald Trump during his campaign
vowed not to cut Medicare benefits but, recently, during an annual report to the Congress by
Medicare board of trustees showed that Medicare trust fund could run out by 2026 compelling
Donald Trump’s budget plan to include cuts to Medicare spending in the coming decade. The
idea is aiming at decreasing payments to doctors, nursing homes and other health care providers
in favor of continuous coverage to Medicare beneficiaries; in addition, Donald Trump’s effort to
cut taxes, ease federal regulations, and improve trade deals would help to sustain Medicare and
Social security and boost the economy in the long run (Surgical products, 2018).
This study source was downloaded by 100000812546443 from CourseHero.com on 01-23-2023 04:35:42 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/45076762/6050-MODULE-2-DISCUSSIONdocx/
for economic stabilization while legislators are systematically seeking for chances of re-election
without minding what effect the policy enacted will have on the citizens such as changes to
Obamacare or Medicare and Medicaid (Milstead & Short, 2019, P.40). The efforts to
repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) directs toward favoritism for the wealthy
Americans giving room to inequality of access to health care coverage. However, the ACA
positioned the working class citizens to pay for the health coverage of lower-class individuals
through tax premium credit. Given maximization for re-election, the current administration as
part of Tax cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the penalty set forth by ACA on uninsured individuals will
no longer be effective in 2019 (Kaiser, 2019).
It is noteworthy to understand that ACA was a redistributive Act that uses public
resources obtained via higher taxes on high-income earning Americans to give access to health
care among the lower-income citizens including those excluded from employer-based insurance,
non-college degree holders, those without a job, and the very low-income earners (Griffith et al.,
2017). In agreement with Feldstein, (2006), the current administration is using legislative power
to propose repeal/replace the ACA initiative to their favor versus in favor of the society in
general. The repeal/replacement of ACA aims at reducing subsidies for Medicaid expansion as
well as those in a low-income bracket which invariably may create an increased gap between
upper-class and lower income-class Americans thus, defeating the aim of ACA (Griffith et al.,
2017).
Although analysis of cost-benefit calculation is mostly to benefit the legislators and not to
the cost-benefits to the society of enacting appropriate legislation, however, legislators with such
self-interest in most cases tend to create policy in equilibrium with national interest for re-
election and historical legacy. In support of this statement, Donald Trump during his campaign
vowed not to cut Medicare benefits but, recently, during an annual report to the Congress by
Medicare board of trustees showed that Medicare trust fund could run out by 2026 compelling
Donald Trump’s budget plan to include cuts to Medicare spending in the coming decade. The
idea is aiming at decreasing payments to doctors, nursing homes and other health care providers
in favor of continuous coverage to Medicare beneficiaries; in addition, Donald Trump’s effort to
cut taxes, ease federal regulations, and improve trade deals would help to sustain Medicare and
Social security and boost the economy in the long run (Surgical products, 2018).
This study source was downloaded by 100000812546443 from CourseHero.com on 01-23-2023 04:35:42 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/45076762/6050-MODULE-2-DISCUSSIONdocx/
