Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Answer

Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Affordability has been the most serious healthcare problem faced by most Americans. The high cost of healthcare is not bettered by the insurance costs, with the high premiums and cost-sharing (Jost, 2016). The underlying uneven distribution of economic resources all-round highly influences the distribution of healthcare affordability among Americans. Since its enactment, Affordable Care Act (or ACA) has been tremendous in the opposing trajectory, seeing millions of Americans gain access to healthcare due to its affordability, yet ACA faces great opposition in the current government, with some of its ardent opponents favoring reversal to the pre-ACA insurance model (McIntyre & Song, 2019). The Health Care Affordability Act of 2019, a bill sponsored by Lauren Underwood, which is at the introduction stage in the Representative House, seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve affordability and reduce premium costs of health insurance for consumers. The bill’s potential to enhance healthcare is inarguable. This paper is an exposition of the bill, detailing its legislation comparison as well as advocacy statement.

Part 1: Legislation Comparison Grid

ef

in

ad

dre

Part 2: Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement

The need for legislation of the bill is unequivocally enormous, based on underlying healthcare access problems of the average American. The unequitable distribution of resources generally deter development efforts of the population as a whole, healthcare not spared, hence the need to reduce the gap between the ‘worthy’ wealth and the ‘unworthy’ poor is persistent. ACA’s approach to ensuring coverage and care affordability is complex and fickle in its enforcement of large employers’ provision of coverage for full-time employees. The allegedly disproportionate burden of the policy in its enforcement and penalties for failure sets it up for incessant criticism, yet the facts of healthcare milestones achieved by ACA are indisputable. The cost of health, however, remains high, yet continuous insurance remains an impossibility for many Americans with the expensive premiums. The conditions predisposes those who cannot access elaborate health insurance covers to lack of healthcare access, as insurance coverage disruption prevents access, as empirically opined by Zhao et al. (2019). The need to universalize healthcare services’ funding is a matter of national wellbeing, a factor that should arguably be a measure of patriotism. In the effect of this paradigm, the social goal of overall wellbeing is highly demanding and likely to attract criticisms and limitations alike, as has been seen. In verity, the history of healthcare costs has been intricately linked with other social factors like race and income levels, yet it stands in the apex of importance when ranked.

Currently, a large proportion’s wellbeing is curtailed by decried cost of drugs as well as facility healthcare, yet the cost of insurance remains high. The Health Care Affordability Act of 2019 seeks to enhance equitable healthcare services’ access and affordability in a model that replicates wealth redistribution. In reality, a tweak of the taxation model has proven to be difficult beyond promises made by current Presidents during their campaigns, with the complexities of profiling the rich. Nevertheless, a compromise that ensures certain provisions that are enrolled to tax are reached equitably is morally essential. The impervious tax system does not, in essence, disallow societal good in provision of essential services. Indisputably, equitable healthcare services does not end with non-discrimination by healthcare providers but in the costing which is essential for longevity. Moreover, the Care Affordability Act of 2019 suggestion’s correlation to taxation does not imply causation (Barrowman, 2014). In fact, this bill suggest a premium model that is only similar to the tax model.

In addition to the bill, I propose an amendment that extends the bill’s inclusivity. As it is, the bill targets the Americans with taxable incomes, in a light tweak of ACA. This sidelines the unemployed Americans and/or those with indirect employments. My proposed amendment is lowered premium rates for the groups that are not within the tax bracket. Also, a uniform raise of new premium rates for the bracket earning above 400% of percent of poverty line, to distinguish them from the bracket just below it. These two amendments are coupled to enhance redistributed funding of healthcare. With the rising unemployment number trends, an all-inclusive plan is inclining. This, I presume, will influence the bill’s acceptability and legislation.