USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Question
I will upload a file of instructions of the paper. Please read carefully and follow the instructions. You can use as many sources as you want but please use more than 6 sources.
Answer
Name of Student
Name of Professor
Political Science Paper
08 August 2015.
The Affordable Care (ACA)/ Obamacare
The aim of this paper is to highlight the debate on the Affordable Care Act. It examines the various sides to the debate, the concerns of the actors, and how governmental actors are responding to those concerns. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is yet to gain popularity across the United States almost five years after its enactment. It is popular in blue states but remains unpopular in red states. According to an opinion poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 43 percent of Americans oppose the law while 41 percent support it (Millman 1). One of its requirements was for states to set up marketplaces or exchanges where individuals without insurance could shop for health plans. A majority of blue states have already set up these exchanges but most red states have not.
The displeasure with the law has also been expressed through lawsuits. In June 2015, the Supreme Court made a ruling on King v. Burwell, a case that threatened to bankroll the progress that has already been made through Obamacare (Sanger-Katz 1). It ruled that the federal government should continue providing subsidies in states that failed to provide those subsidies. However, in a different ruling last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the federal government’s ability to provide subsidies to individuals who had enrolled for health insurance through the newly established exchanges (O’Connor 3). This back-and-forth process gains, losses, and general antagonism over the healthcare program demonstrates that Americans are yet to embrace Obamacare.
There are different sides to the Obamacare debate, and this has been demonstrated through the views expressed by interest groups, political parties, and public opinion polls. Various individuals across the country have also been keen to make their views heard regarding this issue. One of the interest groups that are supportive of Obamacare is big business. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed amicus submissions in court during court cases filed by plaintiffs with strong backing from diverse libertarian and conservative interest groups whose intention is to cripple the new health care law (Barrett 1). Another interest group that supports Obamacare comprises of the medical and insurance industries. Stakeholders in these industries support the law because it will bring health insurance coverage to millions more Americans leading to a corresponding increase in the number of their customers.
Some of the interest groups that are opposed to Obamacare include Judicial Watch, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Missouri Liberty Project, and Cato Institute (Barrett 2). These opponents oppose Obamacare because they feel that it threatens the principle of the separation of powers between different arms of government as stipulated in the Constitution. Consequently, these interest groups spend less time highlighting the practical consequences of the law for health care. Instead, they spend most of their time fighting against the move by the federal government to provide subsidies in states that are reluctant to establish exchanges.
From the perspective of political parties, Obamacare is being supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. The idea of a health care law of Obamacare’s variety in terms of structure had already been developed as part of a health care reform debate in Democratic congressional districts all over the country even before the election of President Obama into the country’s highest office (Pollack 2). Thus, the Democratic Party was responsible for initiating a grassroots movement that culminated in the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. This explains why democrats, led by President Obama, continue to be the law’s staunchest supporters.
On the other hand, Republicans have for a long continued to oppose Obamacare. They argue that it will lead to a rapid increase in health care costs while at the same time preventing job growth. They also argue that the individual mandate clause that is contained in the law is unconstitutional. Moreover, Republicans contend that the security of exchanges is not guaranteed, meaning that the personal information of citizens may be at risk. However, the opposition to exchanges among Republicans has not been unanimous. For instance, by 2013, nine out of 17 states that had agreed to set up exchanges were either operating on a Republican majority or were being administered by a Republican governor (Jones, Bradley and Oberlander 107).
In the meantime, senior Republican leaders have been expressing their views on the policy options they will continue to advocate for as part of their fight against Obamacare. One of them involves repealing and replacing the ACA with conservative reformed aimed at empowering consumers with a wider range of choices and greater control over decision making as far as their health care is concerned. All the main presidential contenders in the party share this view, meaning that the push for a repeal of Obamacare will continue to be a subject of heated debate until 2016 election and possibly beyond. Presently, the stage is set for a protracted debate because numerous conservative judicial activists have started piling up pressure on Republican presidential candidates to articulate their stance well in order to ensure a decisive victory in the form of amendments to the law.
In the meantime, Republicans in the House of Representatives have been working on a plan aimed at reintroducing subsidies in the event that any of the court cases is decided against Obamacare (Walsh and Schleifer 1). The objective of this more, Republicans say, is to reintroduce the same subsidies provided for under Obamacare. They plan to do this as a way of creating a transition period during which individuals who have been denied access to subsidy can stay afloat as they look for health insurance (Walsh and Schleifer 4). This plan is also aimed at avoiding political fallout that may occur if millions of Americans suddenly find it impossible to meet their health insurance obligations. The republicans are aware that if such a thing happened, Democrats would easily blame it on them. Once the transition period is over, Republicans want to work towards achieving their overarching objective of ensuring that Obamacare is amended. In contrast, Democrats have resolved to keep vetoing all bills that threaten to introduce any alterations to the health care law.
Republicans are advocating a plan that will force whoever will be president in 2017 to replace Obamacare with another health care law (Walsh and Schleifer 4). Part of this plan involves giving states an opportunity to avoid Obamacare together with all its mandates as well as to give them access to block grants aimed at covering everyone who has lost access to federal subsidies. The objective is to ensure that the block grants are equivalent to the subsidies the states may have already started receiving from the federal government in the form of subsidies.
In terms of the views of the public, a lot of focus has been on opinion polls. These polls provide important information on how different demographic groups feel about the new health care law. For instance, most of the support for the law has continuously been coming from minority groups (Millman 2). At the same time, white-American support seems to have slightly waned over time, while Hispanics have continued to support the law since its enactment. However, African Americans have been more consistent in their support of Obamacare than Hispanics (Millman 2). Another important observation captured in recent polls is that those who are uninsured are increasingly becoming pessimistic about their prospects of getting health insurance coverage. Among this population, a major concern is that the Affordable Care Act may subject them to a financial penalties if they fail to obtain health insurance. However, the expectation by the Congressional Budget is that only 13 percent will be subjected to the penalty because a majority of them will already have qualified for exemptions (Millman 1). On the overall, the polls indicate that there are many things about Obamacare that many of its potential beneficiaries still do not know about.
The three government actors in America (President, Congress, and courts) have responded to the pressure being mounted on Obamacare in different ways. On his part, President Obama has responded to the pressure from republicans and interest groups by highlighting the numerous ways in which the law will improve the health of Americans. One of the benefits that President Obama has repeatedly highlighted is that the law will enable 105 million Americans to break away from lifetime limits on their health insurance coverage (Whitehouse.Gov 1). Another benefit that the president continues to highlight is that Obamacare will help over 19 million individuals with pre-existing conditions who will no longer have to go through the agony of paying more or being denied coverage altogether because of those conditions (Whitehouse.Gov 2).
On the other hand, Congress has responded to various questions being raised regarding the constitutionality and appropriateness of Obamacare by introducing various bills. One of them is bill No. S. 673, which seeks to establish a transition plan for all individuals who may encounter various problems arising from unlawful implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Congress.Gov 6).
On their part, the courts have been endeavoring to handle various cases brought before them by opponents of Obamacare in an impartial way. One of these cases is King v. Burwell, in which case the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare by indicating that the federal government should continue providing subsidies in states that are reluctant to provide those subsidies (Sanger-Katz 3). In a different case, the Court of Appeals dealt Obamacare care a blow by preventing the federal government from providing subsidies to individuals enrolling for coverage through state exchanges (O’Connor 2). This back-and-forth court process is expected to continue through an appeal on the ruling by advocates of the health care law (O’Connor 6).
Today, the courts have a critical role to play in determining the course that the Obamacare debate takes next. Their decisions in recent times have emboldened opponents of the law, who feel that any ruling that turns in their favor can open up an opportunity for a much sought-after legislative appeal. If federal trial-level courts challenge the constitutionality of the health care law, pressure on the Obama administration to support efforts to amend it may intensify. Additionally, more Americans have taken notice of the ongoing court tussles as opponents of the law strive to ensure that it is declared unconstitutional. As more court cases and appeals continue to be presented, attention is shifting away from the other two arms of government (the Presidency and Congress). In essence, a declaration that Obamacare is unconstitutional may greatly influence a move by Republicans to have the law struck down in its entirety rather than repealed. However, such a declaration seems unlikely because of the aspect of judicial conservativism the courts have exhibited in their recent rulings on court cases challenging the constitutionality of this controversial law.
In conclusion, the Affordable Care Act is yet to be widely accepted by Americans. This is evident in the divergent views that continue to be exhibited along partisan and interest-group lines. Republicans oppose the law based on the claim that it is not only unconstitutional but will also lead to rapid growth in health care costs. Similarly, various interest groups have been going to courts to challenge the constitutionality of the law. This means that President is under immense pressure to ensure that the law is not amended, or worse still, struck out in its entirety. Similarly, courts are under pressure to deviate from their path of judicial conservativism by declaring the law unconstitutional in its entirety.
Works Cited
Barrett, Paul. “Big Business Is Backing Obamacare Ahead of Supreme Court Hearing.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/big-business-is-backing-obamacare-ahead-of-supreme-court-hearing (August 8, 2015).
Congress.Gov. “S.673 – Winding Down ObamaCare Act.” https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/673/all-info (August 8, 2015).
Jones, David., Bradley, Katharine and Oberlander, Jonathan. “Pascal’s Wager: Health Insurance Exchanges, Obamacare, and the Republican Dilemma.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 39.1, (2014): 97-137.
Millman, Jason. “Millions more have coverage, but the public still isn’t sold on Obamacare.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/19/millions-more-have-coverage-but-the-public-still-isnt-sold-on-obamacare/ (August 8, 2015).
O’Connor, Clare. “Court Strikes down Obamacare Exchange Subsidies; Proving That the Secret to Good Legislation Is KISS.” http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml (August 8, 2015).
Pollack, Harold. “The group that got health reform passed is declaring victory and going home.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/05/the-group-that-got-health-reform-passed-is-declaring-victory-and-going-home/ (August 8, 2015).
Sanger-Katz, Margot. “Obamacare, Back at the Supreme Court: Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/03/upshot/obamacare-back-at-the-supreme-court-frequently-asked-questions.html?_r=0 (August 8, 2015).
Walsh, Deirdre and Schleifer, Theodore. “House Republicans look to extend Obamacare subsidies.” http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/17/politics/obamacare-republican-subsidies/ (August 8, 2015).
Whitehouse.Gov. August 1, 2015. “Health Care that Works for Americans.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview (August 8, 2015).
