Expand on this explanation and provide an example that supports this explanation or respectfully challenging this explanation and providing an example.
Cost Benefit Analysis and its Impact on Efforts to Repeal ACA
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was one of the policies in the Obama administration that caused diverse political reactions among the legislators and the public. This policy attempted to address the social injustices in America by prioritizing healthcare delivery, especially to low-income individuals (McIntyre & Song, 2019). Legislators had divided opinions on implementing these policies, as most of them conducted a cost-benefit analysis on its suitability in resolving healthcare issues. The first attempt to replace ACA was in 2017 with the passing of the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Implementing the latter policy would mean that approximately half of the beneficiaries of the ACA would lose access to affordable healthcare services (Issar & Dilling, 2021). The AHCA also proposed a tax credit based on age, an aspect that would increase the cost of healthcare services. Reelection affected the success and implementation of the AHCA to replace ACA. Most citizens supported the ACA, and legislators had no option but to keep it for their reelection, as legislators who opposed it risked losing their seats.
The voters’ views affect the legislators’ positions on the policy as the voters have the power to reelect them. Milstead and Short (2019) ascertain that voters influence important political aspects and determine their implementation or rejection. The best example of the influence of voters on policy issues was the replacement of ACA with AHCA. The voters supported ACA because it increased accessibility and availability of quality healthcare but repelled the AHCA due to the associated taxes and increased healthcare service costs (Wilensky, 2018; Issar & Dilling, 2021). The legislators in the House of Representatives and Senate need the votes to secure their positions, and disagreeing with the voters’ opinions would disadvantage their political careers (Congress.gov, n.d.; United States Senate, n.d.). Therefore, supporting the policy that the citizens support at higher levels increases the chances of legislators retaining their seats, even when they disagree with the policy’s mandates.
Resources to use:
- Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse's guide (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
- Chapter 3, “Government Response: Legislation” (pp. 37–56)
- Chapter 10, “Overview: The Economics and Finance of Health Care” (pp. 180–183 only)
- Congress.govLinks to an external site.. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.congress.gov/
- Taylor, D., Olshansky, E., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, V., Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017). Corrigendum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health professional education. Nursing Outlook, 65(2), 346–350Links to an external site..
- United States House of RepresentativesLinks to an external site.. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.house.gov/
- United States SenateLinks to an external site.. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.senate.gov/
- United States Senate. (n.d.). Senate organization chart for the 117th CongressLinks to an external site.. https://www.senate.gov/reference/org_chart.htm