Since its signing in on 23 March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has taken some harsh criticism from politicians and the wider public. The plan's biggest objective was to increase expenditure on Medicaid and reduce expenditures by Medicare. In order to achieve the challenging financial targets required, most of the national population would be required to take out health insurance, in the interests also of promoting preventative care, which would need to be federally subsidized in order to be viable.
The change in healthcare policy would see more Americans on health insurance programs, but Medicare's payment rates would be reduced and an excise tax on insurance plans, with high premiums, would be introduced.
While president Obama's acceptance and passing of the bill was an attempt to reduce federal healthcare spending in the midst of a dire economic crisis it would come at the expense of welfare programs and food stamps. Only because the republicans/tea party blocked single payer.
One of the more controversial elements of the PPACA was instituting contraception as a requirement on the part of both employers and educational institutions. The initial bill included religious institutions within its mandate but this was retracted and revised under instantaneous and sharp criticism from opposing religious and political organizations.
The changes to public health policy were in response to the federal government's need to reduce its expenditure in excess of $300 billion, and as part of a need to convert it from a government-run entity to a subsidized program.
Another of the highly controversial implications of the act was the impact that it would have on senior citizens. Senior citizens would have the choice between a private plans approved by Medicare or continue to pay fees for medical services and expenses subsidized by the federal government.
Another of the staunch criticisms of the bill is that the Medicare cuts could potentially force medical institutions and hospitals into debt, with senior citizens being worst affected.
One of the biggest questions left by the passage of the act was what would happen to those who did not have health insurance and where they would be left in the absence of a government-funded program. The federal government, feeling the economic pinch of late, seeks to transfer the responsibility of healthcare from government accountability and put it back into the hands of the citizen, advocating that every individual is responsible for their own state of health and the level of care it requires. This comes at a time when corporate companies are reducing the benefits extended to employees for health insurance, high inflation and an increased cost of living and consumers who are battling the credit crunch. This is important; join the progressive democrats of America. Healthcare not Warfare!
The change in healthcare policy would see more Americans on health insurance programs, but Medicare's payment rates would be reduced and an excise tax on insurance plans, with high premiums, would be introduced.
While president Obama's acceptance and passing of the bill was an attempt to reduce federal healthcare spending in the midst of a dire economic crisis it would come at the expense of welfare programs and food stamps. Only because the republicans/tea party blocked single payer.
One of the more controversial elements of the PPACA was instituting contraception as a requirement on the part of both employers and educational institutions. The initial bill included religious institutions within its mandate but this was retracted and revised under instantaneous and sharp criticism from opposing religious and political organizations.
The changes to public health policy were in response to the federal government's need to reduce its expenditure in excess of $300 billion, and as part of a need to convert it from a government-run entity to a subsidized program.
Another of the highly controversial implications of the act was the impact that it would have on senior citizens. Senior citizens would have the choice between a private plans approved by Medicare or continue to pay fees for medical services and expenses subsidized by the federal government.
Another of the staunch criticisms of the bill is that the Medicare cuts could potentially force medical institutions and hospitals into debt, with senior citizens being worst affected.
One of the biggest questions left by the passage of the act was what would happen to those who did not have health insurance and where they would be left in the absence of a government-funded program. The federal government, feeling the economic pinch of late, seeks to transfer the responsibility of healthcare from government accountability and put it back into the hands of the citizen, advocating that every individual is responsible for their own state of health and the level of care it requires. This comes at a time when corporate companies are reducing the benefits extended to employees for health insurance, high inflation and an increased cost of living and consumers who are battling the credit crunch. This is important; join the progressive democrats of America. Healthcare not Warfare!
