Repealing or Replacing the Affordable Care Act
The Affordable Care Act was passed on March 23rd, 2010, to increase health insurance and bring reforms to the market regarding health insurance policies (Zhao et al. 2020). The Act has several provisions that improve the public healthcare system. Since its implementation, controversies have surrounded the Act, with some arguing that the project is costly for citizens regardless of government subsidies. It has been argued that the Affordable Care Act is a government project and an opportunity to benefit a few wealthy individuals at the expense of increased taxation and a few insurance companies owned by cartels associated with government officials. Citizens do not trust the government’s role in healthcare to be sincere, which raised concerns over the Act’s legitimacy, thus leading to motions to repeal the Act.
The politics behind the Affordable Care Act surround the contradicting controversies about who benefits most from the implementation of the Act (Michener, 2020). While it increases access to healthcare services and decreases costs, repealing the Act has been suggested as an effective way to reduce government expenditure on healthcare and save about $1.55 trillion. The argument that repealing the Act may help reduce taxation and government expenditure is counteracted by the premise that a complete repeal would result in substantial economic decline. The insurance firms invested in the healthcare system will lose revenues, and a significant percentage of the population will be rendered unemployed. A cost-benefit analysis reveals more damage to repealing the Act because the healthcare system’s sustainability is invested in the Act to increase access and reduce costs. Additionally, it provides an avenue for creating government revenue, creating employment, and thus helping in economic growth.
The role of legislators in the Act is to represent citizen interests in the repeal process and to be reelected; therefore, their vote on the repeal should be embedded in the citizen’s decision (Gould, 2021). This means that legislators’ votes in support or opposition to the repeal lie in the citizens’ positions. For instance, minority groups like Hispania have greatly benefited from the Act; therefore, their representative legislator is inclined to vote against the repeal.
References
Zhao, J., Mao, Z., Fedewa, S. A., Nogueira, L., Yabroff, K. R., Jemal, A., & Han, X. (2020). The Affordable Care Act and access to care across the cancer control continuum: a ten-year review. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 70(3), 165-181.
Michener, J. (2020). Race, politics, and the Affordable Care Act. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 45(4), 547-566.
Gould, J. S. (2021). The Law of Legislative Representation. Va. L. Rev., 107, 765
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Regardless of political affiliation, individuals often grow concerned when considering perceived competing interests of government and their impact on topics of interest to them. The realm of healthcare is no different. Some people feel that local, state, and federal policies and legislation can be either helped or hindered by interests other than the benefit to society.
Repealing or Replacing the Affordable Care Act
Consider, for example, that the number one job of a legislator is to be reelected. Cost can be measured in votes as well as dollars. Thus, it is essential to consider the legislator’s perspective on promoting or not promoting a certain initiative in the political landscape.
Post an explanation for how you think the cost-benefit analysis regarding legislators being reelected affected efforts to repeal/replace the ACA. Then, explain how analyses of the vote’s views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies (e.g., Congress’ decisions impacting Medicare or Medicaid). Remember, the number one job of a legislator is to be re-elected. Please check your discussion grading rubric to ensure your responses meet the criteria.