The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is one of the most substantial reforms in Medicare since 1965. This is now considered the law of the land according to Douglas Holtz-Eaton. The PPACA portrays a “coverage first” strategy. “Sadly, a review a of the state’s experience bodes poorly for the future of national reform.” (Point/Counterpoint 177)
There are two major driving factors in which could propose a threat for this reform. The first factor is it costs too much. Many decades ago, healthcare spending was at a minimum and not the focal point of American citizens. The statics show during 1970, national health expenditures were $1,300 per person and consumed 7 cents out of every national dollar, 7% of the GDP. Since the 1970, the spending per person has grown 2% more each year than income per captia. Therefore, healthcare costs have been increasing at such a high rate and will continue to threaten many decades to come. The second factor is the skyrocket of health insurance. This obviously is not mindboggling due to the fact that it is a reaction to the rapid increase of healthcare. Insurance costs have tripled over the past decade, making it hard for the average citizen to afford such outrageous premiums. As a result, less and less people are opting out of health insurance, which is no longer an option due to the new federal law making health insurance mandatory.
The PPACA reform is looked upon with a “cost first” approach. This approach allows quality care to be inexpensive due to a strong delivery system, which frees up resources that help support coverage expansions. “Advocates argue that it is necessary to get everyone in the insurance pool, eliminate risk selection, and relieve providers of uncompensated care costs before delivery system reform will be possible.” (Point/Counterpoint 179) Eliminating the “free rider” problem was the main concern.
Unfortunately, the Massachusetts experience signifies that a “coverage first”
There are two major driving factors in which could propose a threat for this reform. The first factor is it costs too much. Many decades ago, healthcare spending was at a minimum and not the focal point of American citizens. The statics show during 1970, national health expenditures were $1,300 per person and consumed 7 cents out of every national dollar, 7% of the GDP. Since the 1970, the spending per person has grown 2% more each year than income per captia. Therefore, healthcare costs have been increasing at such a high rate and will continue to threaten many decades to come. The second factor is the skyrocket of health insurance. This obviously is not mindboggling due to the fact that it is a reaction to the rapid increase of healthcare. Insurance costs have tripled over the past decade, making it hard for the average citizen to afford such outrageous premiums. As a result, less and less people are opting out of health insurance, which is no longer an option due to the new federal law making health insurance mandatory.
The PPACA reform is looked upon with a “cost first” approach. This approach allows quality care to be inexpensive due to a strong delivery system, which frees up resources that help support coverage expansions. “Advocates argue that it is necessary to get everyone in the insurance pool, eliminate risk selection, and relieve providers of uncompensated care costs before delivery system reform will be possible.” (Point/Counterpoint 179) Eliminating the “free rider” problem was the main concern.
Unfortunately, the Massachusetts experience signifies that a “coverage first”