Healthcare is a staple of human existence. In the United States, healthcare is a vital aspect of society which is reflected by the passage of legislation such as Deciare, Medicaid, and now the ACA. In particular, in the JAMA article written by President Obama himself, the known possible progress about the ACA and healthcare is analyzed. In particular, it is fascinating to read the though statistics as well as analysis that has been collected over these years on healthcare for American citizens. In a generic sense, the uninsured rate has declined vie nearly 43%, now down to 9.1% in 2015 (JAMA). While the specific stats can be discussed, there is no doubt that there has been an increase in the number of insured citizens. Furthermore, what sol surprises me is the “reorientation “of healthcare that is assumed by the by the article, even if 19 states have still not accepted the expansion of Medicaid. Furthermore, what also interest me is the new payment plan orientation, rather than the initial “fee-for-fee “service. The ACA, as indicated by the article, has striven to introduce alternative paying methods for healthcare. I was surprised that the system did not have that before, as federal college loans do. The JAMA article provided many different insights that were very surprising to their specifics and claims.
Furthermore, the purpose of the ACA is to provide healthcare for US Citizens, a noble purpose. However, there is just cause to say that is implementation and passage were an unfair reflection of the United States legislative system. The Republican Presidential candidate, Donald J Trump, has already voiced his disdain for the Affordable Healthcare Act and would like to replace it with an alternate program. He would also like to fund the states with block grants in order to give them the freedom to choose the Medicaid programs that will serve them better. On the other hand, the Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton’s position on healthcare is clear: she will defend the passage of the ACA and would like to protect its intent. I am worried about both of these candidate’s stances for different reasons. From the perspective of Trump, trying to destroy the Aca and replace it will only waste the time needed to protect American Citizens. As well, with the current political stance, it is possible that the same type of partisan politics, that was accused during the previous administration, can occur. On the democratic side, while I agree to defend and fox the ACA, continuing to support it can lead to the stalemate that has been happening as of recent. This is just my political opinion on the public health policy. On specific healthcare gridlines, it seems to be that both parties agree to lower the costs, introduce more affordable care coverage plans, and help the citizens. The specifics can be different but in a general sense, I abide by their long-term goals for the most part.
I believe that for the healthcare to be fully protective of the American society, Medicaid should be expanded to every state. Much of the uninsured part of the American demographic is the low-income Americans, people why can be covered by the Medicaid expansion. It will take some time to convince the 19 states that have not done so, but it should be essential in my opinion. On another note, another possible improvement could be the direct relationship between the insures ad their customers. Delegating it through business or other entities leads to a middle man that will change the system for its own benefit. The current high premiums and high deductibles can and should be lowered. To do so, it is necessary to remove many of the redundancies inside the system. Healthcare.gov was an opportunity to do so, yet it was not fully pragmatic. IF these two basic things are done, it can become easier to serve all American citizens the healthcare they deserve.