Discussion: Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act NURS 6050

Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

Discussion: Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act NURS 6050

Discussion: Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act NURS 6050

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.

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 important to consider the legislator’s perspective on either promoting or not promoting a certain initiative in the political landscape.

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT:    Discussion: Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act NURS 6050

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and reflect on efforts to repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Consider who benefits the most when policy is developed and in the context of policy implementation.

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Discussion: Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act NURS 6050
By Day 3 of Week 3

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.

By Day 6 of Week 3

Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days by expanding on their explanation and providing an example that supports their explanation or respectfully challenging their explanation and providing an example.

RE: Discussion – Week 3

When new topics of interest rise to the government level and grasp the attention of legislators it is important that they factor in cost, voters’ interest, and reelection when making their decision. The same is expected when legislators are faced with the duty to repeal or replace a bill. In regards to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) analysis must be drawn considering whether its existence or its eradication is in favor of the legislator. Researchers projected that the affordable care act reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion (Emanuel, 2019), benefiting millions of Americans and depending on which part of the spectrum you fall (democrat or republican) this may or may not be favorable numbers. For decades the basis of the Democrats’ campaign was the fight for security in healthcare for Americans and are commented on preserving and protecting the ACA (Democrats.org, n.d.). The projected savings for healthcare and the grand number of persons benefiting from the ACA favors cost control and proves beneficial in cutting costs for American citizens and the Government at large.

On the other hand, the republicans oppose the ACA and have vowed to repeal it, arguing that less than 50% of Americans benefit from it (Dalen, et al., 2015). They have strategies thru TV ads shaming and discrediting the ACA as a way to turn Americans against it and secure trust in Americans that they can provide better for them in hopes to secure the majority of votes.

Buettgens, et, al. (2016) in their article “The cost of ACA repeal” states that repealing the ACA would reduce federal government spending on health care for the nonelderly, which appears to be one of the goals of those advocating repeal, by $90.9 billion in 2021 and $927 billion between 2017 and 2026. However, a repeal would also mean more persons would become uninsured, State spending would increase by $68.5 billion between 2017 and 2026 as reductions in Medicaid spending would be more than offset by increases in uncompensated care (Buettgens, et, al, 2016). This is where legislators must make a decision based on the best interest of their constituents, as they are the ones responsible for reelecting them. Also, one must take into consideration; is repealing the bill going to save the government money or in the end, cost them a lot more.

References

Buettgens, M., Blumberg, L., Holahan, J., & Ndwandwe, S. (2016). The cost of ACA repeal. Retrieved December 16th, 2020 from

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/81296/2000806-The-Cost-of-the-ACA-Repeal.pdf

Dalen, J., Waterbrook, K., & Alpert, J. (2015) Why do so many Americans oppose the Affordable Care Act? American Journal of Medicine, 8(8), 807-810,

doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.01.032

Democrats.org. (n.d.). Healthcare: Democratic party platform. Retrieved December 16, 2020 from

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/the-issues/health-care/

Emmanuel, E. (2019). Name the much-criticized federal program that has saved the U.S. $2.3 trillion. Hint: it starts with Affordable. Retrieved December 16th, 2020 from

https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-controls-

costs/#:~:text=One%20month%20after%20the%20ACA,record%2Dkeeper%20estimated%20that%20health

*Note: Throughout this program, your fellow students are referred to as colleagues.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 3 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 3

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 3 Discussion

Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

In the political system, the main aim of any political leader is to get reelected. The Trump administration and the legislators allied to the ruling have tried to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) three times since 2016 and they have not been successful. What Americans presumable need as it concerns universal healthcare, involves slight changes to the ACA as opposed to repealing it (Milstead & Shortm, 2019).  As such, in their quest for reelection, the legislators may engage in cost- benefit analysis in repealing the ACA.

Owing to the fact that Americans have shown openly that they are not for repealing the ACA, exercising patience may be of great significance in ensuring that the legislators attain reelection. However, insisting on repealing the policy could be costly to the legislators. According to Milstead and Shortm (2019), legislators who take an angle of making changes to the policy could have a significant benefit that could positively affect their re-election since it has been evident that this is what the American voters want.

As such, analysis of the views of voters could have significant effects on the decisions by legislators as it concerns recommendation of such national policies as impacting changes on the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services, which has been a hot bone of contention over the years (Taylor et al., 2017). As much as the ACA failed to take Americans to the promised land of universal health care, the views of voters are not for repealing but for making specific changes that would ensure that the policy ensures universal health coverage. Therefore, in their quest for reelection, legislators could decide on making policy recommendations that align with the views of the voters (United States House of Representatives, n.d).

References

Milstead, J.A., & Shortm, N.M. (2019). Health Policy and Politics: A nurse’s guide (6thEd.) Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett learning.

Taylor, D., Olshansky, E., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, VC.,Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017). Corrigedum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health professional education. Nursing Outlook, 65(2), 346-350. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

United States House of Representatives. (n.d). Retrieved from https://www

RE: Discussion – Week 3
Collapse

I agree with you that legislators should agree on making policy changes or recommendations that align with the views of the voter. Voters desire the expansion of universal health coverage; however they oppose some of the regulations that the Affordable Care Act proposed along with it. Enacting penalties to individuals who were not covered under a health plan did not set well with the public. In efforts of repeal the ACA, the Graham-Cassidy Bill, the American Healthcare Act, and the Better Care Reconciliation Act all attempted to lessen or remove the penalties to individuals who were without healthcare coverage and to remove the penalties enacted upon businesses that failed to meet the coverage requirements (Nadash, 2018). Republicans saw the repeal as an opportunity to gain votes due to the unpopular mandates (Nadash, 2018).

Politics has never been something I have been interested in. In my opinion, there is a lot of scheming, finger pointing and truth stretching. However, I know that politics must go on. Milstead and Short (2019) state, “Many nurses and other healthcare professionals see “politics” as a negative term and perceive “playing politics” as a reason for not getting involved in political advocacy.” As I have advanced in my nursing career, I have gained knowledge and can see how political advocacy can help shape health policy. This does not mean that I agree with how politics works, but that if I am involved in informing politicians on healthcare issues, I may be able to make a difference in our populations health.

References

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide(6thed.). 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. https://doi-            org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/08959420.2018.1462683

Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

In the political system, the main aim of any political leader is to get reelected. The Trump administration and the legislators allied to the ruling have tried to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) three times since 2016 and they have not been successful. What Americans presumable need as it concerns universal healthcare, involves slight changes to the ACA as opposed to repealing it (Milstead & Shortm, 2019).  As such, in their quest for reelection, the legislators may engage in cost- benefit analysis in repealing the ACA.

Owing to the fact that Americans have shown openly that they are not for repealing the ACA, exercising patience may be of great significance in ensuring that the legislators attain reelection. However, insisting on repealing the policy could be costly to the legislators. According to Milstead and Shortm (2019), legislators who take an angle of making changes to the policy could have a significant benefit that could positively affect their re-election since it has been evident that this is what the American voters want.

As such, analysis of the views of voters could have significant effects on the decisions by legislators as it concerns recommendation of such national policies as impacting changes on the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services, which has been a hot bone of contention over the years (Taylor et al., 2017). As much as the ACA failed to take Americans to the promised land of universal health care, the views of voters are not for repealing but for making specific changes that would ensure that the policy ensures universal health coverage. Therefore, in their quest for reelection, legislators could decide on making policy recommendations that align with the views of the voters (United States House of Representatives, n.d).

References

Milstead, J.A., & Shortm, N.M. (2019). Health Policy and Politics: A nurse’s guide (6thEd.) Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett learning.

Taylor, D., Olshansky, E., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, VC.,Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017). Corrigedum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health professional education. Nursing Outlook, 65(2), 346-350. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

United States House of Representatives. (n.d). Retrieved from https://www

RE: Discussion – Week 3

     I agree with you that legislators should agree on making policy changes or recommendations that align with the views of the voter. Voters desire the expansion of universal health coverage; however they oppose some of the regulations that the Affordable Care Act proposed along with it. Enacting penalties to individuals who were not covered under a health plan did not set well with the public. In efforts of repeal the ACA, the Graham-Cassidy Bill, the American Healthcare Act, and the Better Care Reconciliation Act all attempted to lessen or remove the penalties to individuals who were without healthcare coverage and to remove the penalties enacted upon businesses that failed to meet the coverage requirements (Nadash, 2018). Republicans saw the repeal as an opportunity to gain votes due to the unpopular mandates (Nadash, 2018).

Politics has never been something I have been interested in. In my opinion, there is a lot of scheming, finger pointing and truth stretching. However, I know that politics must go on. Milstead and Short (2019) state, “Many nurses and other healthcare professionals see “politics” as a negative term and perceive “playing politics” as a reason for not getting involved in political advocacy.” As I have advanced in my nursing career, I have gained knowledge and can see how political advocacy can help shape health policy. This does not mean that I agree with how politics works, but that if I am involved in informing politicians on healthcare issues, I may be able to make a difference in our populations health.

 

References

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide(6thed.). 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. https://doi-            org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/08959420.2018.1462683

The Politics of Healthcare

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. It was a career-defining piece of legislation for President Obama. It was designed with many lofty goals in mind. The law would reduce the number of uninsured and expand access to healthcare for millions of Americans. A few of the ways it would accomplish this was by making insurance more affordable and available through insurance exchanges, expansion of Medicaid programs, and development of new guidelines for eligibility so that more uninsured were covered under Medicaid (Buettgens, Blumberg, Halohan, & Ndwandwe, 2016).

Since its inception, the Affordable Care Act has been politically divisive. The initial vote was split along party lines, Republican vs. Democrat, when the United States Congress passed it. Since then, it has been a decade long battle to repeal or replace Obamacare, led by the Republican party. The reason that the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections was because of the political backlash that was associated with the signing of the Affordable Care Act. The public did not really understand what the bill encompassed and showed their displeasure in their vote. In a political twist, the success of the act over the next four years was the reason that the Democrats were able to garner a majority and take back control of the House of Representatives in the 2014 midterm elections (Pramuk, 2019). It is this sort of political wrangling that takes place on every issue, and the opinions of politicians constituents can change at a moment’s notice. This is noted by politicians and they attempt to stay in tune with what their constituents feel strongly about. Representing these wishes is their job but it varies greatly from place to place and in socioeconomic groups.

In the upcoming 2020 presidential election, as always, healthcare is a hot button issue. There were budget cuts for Medicaid in most of the attempts to replace Obamacare. The Medicare and Medicaid programs are considered by many to be inviolable programs and, as such, make for a politically charged issue. Medicaid cuts were one reason for the replacement attempts being largely unsuccessful. These are the types of topics that will make or break a candidate’s bid for office (Chen, 2018). The repeal of the Affordable care act is still at the top of President Trump’s list of objectives, but this may come at the cost of the presidency or be felt later by conservative Republicans in the mid-term congressional elections in 2022 (Brownstein, 2019).

There is no easy answer to the crisis we are facing in the United States regarding healthcare insurance. The political process is slow, and it is a politician’s job to get elected and stay elected. This year’s presidential election stands to be a pivotal point in the healthcare debate. As advanced practice nurses, it is our responsibility to be proactive in the political process, contacting our congresspeople and letting them know our opinions on these issues. In this way, we can guide and influence the debate on healthcare while providing our patients with a high standard of care.

References

Brownstein, R. (2019, March 21). President Trump still wants to repeal Obamacare: The 2020 healthcare debate won’t just be about single payer. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/trumps-health-care-plan-will-influence-2020-debate/585442/

Buettgens, M., Blumberg, L. J., Lolahan, J. & Ndwandwe, S. (2016). The cost of the ACA repeal.The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/81296/2000806-the-cost-of-the-ACA-Repeal.pdf

Chen, L. J. (2018). Getting ready for healthcare reform 2020: Republicans’ options for improving on the state innovation approach. Health Affairs, 37 (12), 2076-2083. Doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05119

Pramuk, J. (2019, December 27). A decade of Obamacare: How health care went from wrecking to boosting Democrats. CNBC. Retrieved from https://cnbc.com/2019/10/26/how-obamacare-affected-democrats-in-presidential-elections.html.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.