Answer

Replacing the Affordable Care Act

            The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a piece of legislation enacted in 2010. The Act has played a significant role in transforming the American health care landscape (Eibner, 2020). The primary goals of the law included reducing the number of uninsured, promote the affordability of coverage, and enhance the rate at which people can access quality care (Eibner, 2020). As a result, the law expanded the eligibility for Medicaid and established new marketplaces where people who did not have employer coverage could directly interact with the insurers and purchase policies (Eibner, 2020). Despite the associated benefits, efforts have been underway to replace the ACA. This paper discusses the efforts set forth to replace the Act while outlining the persons who will benefit most after the changes are made.

Efforts to Replace the ACA

            Efforts to replace the ACA were first ensured in 2017 as the Republican Congressional Leaders made several efforts to replace the act. Some of the proposed elements include a flat tax credit which was founded on age rather than income, a patient and state stability fund that would foresee a reduction in the amount of premiums paid by the end of 2026, and a waiver on some of the rules evident under the current ACA (Amadeo, 2018). However, it is evident that different American states are resistant to the repeal efforts as most plan to uphold the significant components of the Act such as the Medicaid expansion, the individual mandate and healthcare exchanges (Willison & Singer, 2017).

Who Benefits most?

            According to Morgan (2017), repealing the ACA would benefit the wealthiest households available in America. Evidently, the plan made by the Republicans to repeal the taxes available under the Obamacare would benefit the people from the wealthiest US families at a more than five times the rate at which the middle-income households would (Morgan, 2017). Arguably, the effects associated with the repealing of the ACA are dramatic. Notably, a typical middle-income family would obtain a tax cut of approximately $ 300 while those available at the top 0.1% would obtain a tax cut of approximately $ 207,000 (Morgan, 2017). Additionally, it is evident that the anticipated benefits equal 2.6% of the after-tax income of a wealthy household with only 0.5% of the middle-income households’ income (Morgan, 2017).

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Reelection of Legislators

            The reelection of the legislators would speed up the priorities of the ACA replacement through a process of legislation. Evidently, a legislative activity can be vigorous if the control of the executive or legislative branch of the government will change after newly elected officials find their way into government (Buettgens, Blumberg, Holahan & Ndwandwe, 2016). As a result, the repeal would reverse the move to expand the Medicaid eligibility and the elimination of the health insurance marketplaces as well as the financial assistance which was initially availed to the modest-income families, insurance market reforms and modest income families. Therefore, it is accurate to derive that the reelection of the legislators would result to the cost of Medicaid enrollment drop if the ACA is repealed. Notably, approximately 14.5 million fewer people would be enrolled under the cover (Buettgens et al., 2016). Moreover, the private non-group health insurance would decline to pre-ACA levels. Buettgens et al. (2016) note that in 2021, 20.3 million people will be enrolled in the non-group coverage under the ACA in comparison to the 11.5 million in the events of the Act’s repealing. Additionally, the Medicaid expansion states would experience a loss of most of its health coverage (Buettgens et al., 2016). The only benefit experienced with repealing the ACA is that Americans way of spending will be positively influenced especially if they have to pay more for their health insurance. Arguably, Americans will save more or spend on the goods and services focused on improving the quality of life (Rum, 2019).

The Impact of Voter’s Views

            Politicians have the obligation to represent the preferences of the members of their constituents. Evidently, the views of the voters will affect the legislative decision made by the leaders in recommending national policies. Therefore, to ensure that they are reelected into office, the legislators will focus on effectively representing the views of the voters on fundamental public policy areas. Having this factor in mind, it is evident that the voter’s views will positively be represented by the legislative leaders. Similarly, the decision of the members of the Congress regarding the repealing of the ACA can be influences by the voter’s position especially when the associated costs do not seem to benefit a majority of them. As argued by Buettgens et al. (2016), the associated costs of repealing the ACA will be detrimental to the middle-income households by increasing the costs of insurance which would further hinder an effective access to quality care.

Conclusion

            In summary, repealing the ACA is a costly process for Americans as this would result to increased cost of healthcare. However, the voters can utilize their power to influence the legislative leaders’ decisions to prevent the suggested move to make changes to the Act as the frontrunners have the obligation to represent the people’s interests in policy making.