Uninsured Incur

Health care has been a controversial topic of discussion for all Americans since it was put in effect many years ago. Currently the biggest debate of Healthcare up to date is Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is a Health care Reform that is a governmental attempt to make basic health care easily obtainable. However, there are no benefits without cost in situations like this, and upon that are different viewpoints on the subject thus creating political debates discussing if it is ethically correct. The overall goal that Obamacare hopes to accomplish is that through specific changes through insurance companies, industry standards, and patient guarantees a healthier America will be produced. Obamacare has its ups and downs for both the generally agreeing democratic viewpoints and the opposing republican side. Both viewpoints have their own beliefs about how Health care works and Obamacare is somewhat in between on this. Most arguments on Obamacare deal with Medicaid being constitutional and if Obamacare truly reduces the total cost of health care for individuals and in the government.

As Americans we should all be afforded access to healthcare. Access to healthcare is an individual right according to the human rights amendment. The human right to health guarantees a system of health protection for all. The human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions and a clean environment (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015). However there are strengths and weaknesses to every healthcare system and the U.S. Healthcare system is not exempt. I plan to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the U. S. Healthcare system (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015).

This case surrounds the controversy brought about by the Arizona state legislature defunding life-saving organ transplant operations. In 1987, the Arizona state legislature voted to eliminate funding for most organ transplants for the indigent through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). At the same time of this decision, the legislature voted to extend health coverage to pregnant women and children in a “notch group.” The public controversy began when Dianna Brown died after being denied coverage for a liver transplant that would have saved her life. After her death, there was wide spread

What started out as a much needed revision of the Health Care System has turned into a total overhaul which was not passed with bipartisan agreement. This division is reflected not only in the government, but among the people of the United States as well. Polls are taken daily and most of them show that the vast majority of Americans do not want the Health Care Bill. Due to the larger part of America not wanting this bill and finding the bill itself unconstitutional, many states have now filed a lawsuit against the federal government. More than a dozen states that have filed suit against the government believe that this bill violates the Constitution and many more states are considering joining the lawsuits. Some of these contend that the Health Care Bill infringes upon the Tenth Amendment. This amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people"(Dethrick 1). This amendment declares that the states have the ability to implement their own decisions despite what the federal government says. This lawsuit will prove to be a long and costly battle. Regardless of the results of this litigation, undoubtedly, the country will remain divided on this issue for years to come.

On June 28, 2012, The Supreme Court ruled the Federal Government does not have the constitutional right to sanction an individual to buy health insurance, but declared that the states do have the right to place a tax on citizens that do not carry insurance. This ruling is in response to President Obama’s Patient Protection and Healthcare Act of 2010. Passed on March 23, 2010, President Obama’s Reform Act mandates Texas, as well as the nation, to provide Medicaid funding to all individuals that are uninsured by 2014. As well as expanding Medicaid, it will provide exchanges, which are pools of insurance companies a previously uninsured person can pick

Any decision naturally means there must be at least two options from which to choose. The decisions made concerning the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are certainly no exception. Certainly politics enters into the mix, as does associated costs, availability of medical care, quality of care and numerous other factors. While the idea medical care for all seems quite simple on the surface, the devil is in the details. My father, Dudley Plaisance, worked in healthcare for many years, even co-founding a company whose role was to find sources of funding for patients without resources to pay medical

In every day life one must make decisions, and with decisions there comes options from which to choose from. One decision from Texas that has caused concerned has ties to one of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. This provision wants to expand Medicaid coverage to low income Americans. However, the Supreme Court ruled a decision to make the Medicaid expansion optional for states. Therefore, Texas opted out on this idea but is still indecisive on weather or not this expansion is beneficial to the state. As we all know factors like politics enter into the mix, as does the costs of the expansion, availability, and quality of care for these new “enrollees”. The idea of medical care for all seems like a simple effective idea, but the effects overall is detrimental to Texas citizens like myself and my family, who doesn’t necessarily fit into this “mold” of the uninsured citizen the act is trying to attract. The decision Texas made to not expand, in my opinion is a reflection of all citizens who feel that they will not benefit from this implicated Medicaid program.

United States. Congress, Sept 25, 2012, Read the Law, The Health Care Law & You. Retrieved on Sept 24, 2012 from http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html and http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf for the full

Where will I go when I’m sick? Who can I rely on, my government or myself? Will I have to choose between paying bills and the health of my family? The United States of America’s government’s Affordable Care Act is attempting to remove that question from every citizen’s mind. The ACA will allow lifesaving and non-emergency medical treatments to be at the fingertips of every tax paying American. It will make healthcare a right, not just a luxury. Although these may seem like outstanding qualities, is it really all that it is made out to be? “The Affordable Care Act (ACA), officially called The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), is a US law that reforms both the healthcare and health insurance industries in America. The law increases the quality, availability, and affordability of private and public health insurance to over 44 million uninsured Americans through its many provisions which include new regulations, taxes, mandates, and subsidies (PAR 2, Obamacare Facts).” With that being said, I will discuss the controversies seen from both parties in relation to the Affordable Care Act, and bring forth many important factors such as: the benefits and consequences, the cost of the ACA and the coverage actually received, and the future of the Health Care System in a world with Obamacare. The purpose of this paper is to give information in an unbiased manner in relation to the Affordable Care Act.

The article begins with a review of the third day of arguments in which the court took up the question of whether or not the entire law had to be struck down if the individual mandate was found to be unconstitutional. It was only last year that an Appeals Court in Atlanta found that the individual mandate, which requires every American to wither purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, was unconstitutional. However, the Appeals Court also found that the rest of the law was constitutional. It will be up to the Supreme Court to now decide if the individual mandate is constitutional or not, and if not, then whether the rest of the law can stand without it. The next part of the arguments dealt with the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid. The court is to decide whether or not the expansion of Medicaid is unduly coercive to the states. While the new law does give the states more money to expand Medicaid, it also adds a number of new regulations which the states feel give too much

Rosenbaum, S. (2011, January-February). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice. US National Library of Medicine , pp.

On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.

Imagine being homeless, with no job, no car, no money, but still having to pay for health care. You lose all of the money that you can to the government. You can't pay for food, clothes, or save for something. How will you survive! You'll get sent to prison because you can't afford health care. So the current health care law should be overturned.

However, as time went on, several problems arose which had to do with the principle of justice in healthcare. In America, it is the accepted norm that it is unjust to treat one person better or worse than another person, in similar circumstances (Tong, 2007, p.29). In an attempt

Watts is mostly going to support Bradley’s argument that laws are implemented according to the needs and necessity for people so that healthcare is better. According to Bradley being the internal medicine physician knows that healthcare laws are important and patient’s should know them as well. He writes,“ the new regulation aims to educate… ‘take an active role in promoting open communication within the healthcare field [in order to foster] a more inclusive, tolerant environment (Bradley 257). This law was in response to surgery for abortion. For many doctors abortion is against moral belief and therefore, physicians have right to deny to perform the surgery. Bradley also mentions Court case “Roe v. Wade” which gave women right to have an