Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The adoption of this act was one of the primary postulates of Barack’s Obama electoral campaign. Obama speculated on the needs of the United States community to get affordable healthcare insurance packages, the issue that has always been prioritized by the election teams in the United States of America.The package plans available for the citizens of the United States of America before the Obama plan was put into action directly depended on the income generated by a particular individual or household. However, the success of the electoral campaign of the incumbent President can be attributed to his and his team ability to leverage the interests and priorities of the United States electoral base.
Historical development of this law is replete with the issues of particular controversy and complexity. The first initiative of this bill can be attributed to the office of Bill Clinton, whose team elaborated the primary plan of the analyzed healthcare reforms, but the parliamentary opposition averted them from taking practical actions to succeed in the highlighted tasks. Under the tenure of George Walker Bush, the Republican rule on the territories of the United States of America was established and the plans of affordable healthcare package were abandoned (McDonough, 2011).
With the advent of the Democrats headed by the President Barack Obama, the bill eventually came into a law, having faced fierce Congress discussions. The most persistent opposition was encountered in the House of Representatives, in where the Republican Party of the United States of America relayed its own legislative bill on healthcare issues. However, after a national opinion was delivered to congressmen, the Democrats somehow contrived to tackle the opposition of the Republicans and the bill was eventually signed into the law by Barack Obama
The Key Features of the Act
Generally, it can be inferred that the enactment of the analyzed document has fundamentally modified the entire healthcare system of the United States of America. The act is structured as a statute and each title of the document addresses specific issue relating to the healthcare reform construction in the United States of America. Firstly, the document seeks to establish access to qualified medical assistance of all Americans; secondly, it accentuates the role of public-supported healthcare programs. The act also determines the issues connected with quality and efficiency of the healthcare services. To be more exact, the analyzing instrument completely obliterates the lifetime benefits limitations; the age of legal dependency is increased up to twenty-six years. The role of public healthcare programs is particularly prioritized. Most importantly, the overall national expansion of Medicaid and Children Healthcare programs are put into spotlight by the law.
Moreover, specific sections of the law are dedicated to ensure that the medical infrastructure of the United States of America is being modified and enhanced. The required financial resources are allocated and presidential control is imposed over the implementation of the program at issue(Barr, 2011). However, one of the most salient advantages of the act is the protection granted to the low-income United States households and individuals. Those, unable to pay their insurance coverage plans will receive respective tax benefits or state subsidies to overlap the shortage.
Different Media Interpretation
Having analyzed the available media reflection and the scholarly interpretation of the reforming law in question, several important divergences have been identified (Feldman, 2011). First and foremost, the academic sources explicitly evaluate the advantages and the disadvantages of the law and deliver specific prognoses. The assumptions on the law’s effectiveness and anticipated outcomes of the program are analyzed and evaluated. The media coverage in its turn is considerably more politically oriented. The accent is made not on the prospective outcomes of the law, but on the political effectiveness or unprofessionalism of the Democrats, who drafted the bill. Those media sources supporting them eulogize the exertions of Obama, and those Republican-oriented spank this law severely, while no exact critical remarks are made. Overall, for the media, the discussed law is merely a political toolkit, whilst the academics utilize it as a working model to test the hypotheses and macroeconomic assumptions.
As far as my personal opinion is concerned, admittedly I have mixed feelings with regard to the law in question. Socially, I am the most devoted proponent of the Obama’s law, while economically I share wholeheartedly the positions of the Republicans. To be more exact, my firm conviction is that all residents, both legal and illegal of the United States of America shall be permanently accessed to professional medical aid, irrespective of their financial or social status. The United States of America is known to be an international standard of democracy and hereby the principles of equality and fraternity shall not be merely declaratory in their natures. The unification of the medical standards is the most effective way to implement the cornerstones of these principles practically.
However, the burden of finance, in this case, lies on business units. That is detrimental to the business environment of the country.
The Overall Effect
As far as the overall effect of the analyzed initiative on the country is concerned, it can be inferentially concluded that the costs of medical assistance will be substantially diminished for the nation, whereas the access to urgent and non-urgent medical assistance will be fundamentally simplified. As far as the most important effect is concerned, it seems relevant to mention the availability of the subsidies for the low-income families (Barr, 2011). Provided that this clause in duly implemented, the one can be assured that the access to medical services will be equal to all Americans.