Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Discussion

 Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Discussion

 Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Discussion

The concept of cost benefit analysis plays a major role in helping leaders and policymakers, especially in Congress, to make better decisions on distribution of resources at the federal level. The technique is effective at evaluating if a program, like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), is cost-effective in attaining its expected goals (Bussing et al., 2020). The use of the concept depends on the legislators running for office and their personal views as well as political position on healthcare system in general. For instance, if a legislator or candidate believes that resources used for the ACA could be utilized or allocated somewhere else for better use, then this could have an effect on their idea to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

The case of ACA and efforts to repeal and replace demonstrate how legislators and Congress can apply the cost-benefit approach to save a program that has a fundamental effect on the health of millions of Americans. The ACA was enacted to reduce the cost of care, increase access to care, and improve quality of care for millions of Americans, especially those from low-income households. The Trump administration was determined to repeal and replace the ACA; implying that over 25 million Americans could have lost their health and medical insurance. These include the aged and individuals with preexisting conditions who benefit from expanded Medicare and Medicaid programs (Nadash et al., 2018). Therefore, after conducting a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, many legislators, especially leaning towards Trump and the Republican Party, withdrew their support and realized the proposal to repeal and replace ACA would hurt the American voters. Therefore, this would cost them by hindering their re-election to Congress.

The cost-benefit analysis allowed the legislators to determine if actions or opinions would impact their re-election to office in a negative or positive way. Therefore, many who supported the need to repeal and replace ACA lost their re-election while others withdrew their support for the same to enhance their re-election based on public opinions as many Americans hailed Obamacare, especially those with preexisting conditions (Milstead & Short, 2019). The legislators’ views and support to repeal and replace the ACA impacted voters’ decisions concerning their re-election and this means that a cost-benefit approach is essential in healthcare reforms.

References

Bussing, A., Patton, W., Roberts, J. M., & Treul, S. A. (2020). The electoral consequences of roll

            call voting: Health care and the 2018 election. Political Behavior, 1-

21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-020-09615-4

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health Policy and Politics: A Nurse’s Guide (6 ed.).

            Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning

Nadash, P., Miller, E. A., Jones, D. K., Gusmano, M. K., & Rosenbaum, S. (2018). A series of

unfortunate events: Implications of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act for older adults. Journal of aging & social policy, 30(3-4), 259-

281. DOI: 10.1080/08959420.2018.1462683.

BUY A CUSTOM- PAPER HERE

Post an explanation for how you think the cost-benefit analysis in terms of legislators being reelected affected efforts to repeal/replace the ACA. Then, explain how analyses of the voters 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.