The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into effect by President Obama in March of 2010. Often referred to as “Obamacare”, the statute includes mandates, tax credits, and subsidies for both individuals and organizations with the overall aim of increasing health care coverage while also reducing costs. The various components of the act were designed to be implemented over a ten year period and will affect virtually all aspects of the United States health care system. As would be expected with any significant reform initiative, the PPACA has been a focus of controversy since the initial conception of the act.
The Affordable Care Act has been attacked by opponents for many different reasons, such as contraceptive availability and immigration concerns, but the primary theme that supports most critical perspectives is the impact of the statute on the integrity of the free market. Freedom is a core value of the American identity and this level of government involvement in the health care industry is argued to contradict this fundamental quality (Lawson and David Kopel 12). Proponents of the act do not necessarily argue this assertion but instead emphasize the responsibility of government to the well being of their constituents. This perspective has been labeled with both positive and negative connotations as a social approach to government.
From my observations the opposition to the PPACA is based on rhetoric and ideology rather than having any reasonable purpose with respect to the American people. The reform initiative clearly provides benefits on several levels (Jack Jr. and Kennedy 1) and the health care industry should be robust enough to easily survive the transition.
- Jack Jr., Leonard, and Kathleen Kennedy. “Achieving Health Equity through Clinical Practice,
Research and Policy.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 24.1 (2013):
1-5.
- Lawson, Gary, and David Kopel. “The PPACA in Wonderland.” American Journal of Law &
Medicine 38 (2012): 12-13.
