NURS 6051 Politics, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

NURS 6051 Politics, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The cost- benefit analysis (CBA) in terms of legislators being reelected affected efforts to repeal the ACA in that legislators are the recipients of governmental privileges, and their main goal is to be re-elected. When faced with the demands for reform, the lawmakers are supposed to be realistic and they are expected to make cost-benefit assessments which are not the cost-benefits for society in enacting specific laws.
The replacing/repealing of ACA was enacted in 2010 in America. The ACA had a lot of benefits to the American citizens and so a repeal bill was presented to the congress house for the first trial and was rejected. The ACA bill that was brought to the house of congress did not have any strategies of how the then ACA was going to be replaced.
The legislators will only champion what is good for them not considering that the bill is for the American people not for themselves. It is not beneficial in reelecting the legislators to the national congress who will only champion for what is good them leaving the common citizen to bear the cost.
Medicare is woven into the American health care system, it covers most of child birth to long term care at the end of life. The analyses of the votes views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies concerning a national policy like Medicaid, would rely on individual thoughts and their numbers.
It would depend on whether or not American families would be able to afford preventive and curative health care. It would depend on whether or not healthcare providers will be able to afford the provision of free health care to their patients. After the agencies with rulemaking authorities implement regulations, will states be able to preserve jobs and businesses. Will states have resources to address health care crisis.
The legislative leaders may also present their opinions concerning the same policy and because they are the people who make the laws, it will be a national policy that will affect American citizens. These national policies are made according to their voting numbers and these voting numbers are the citizens who are actually the voters, that influence decisions made by the legislative leaders.
Reference
Tisdell, C. (n.d.). Cost-benefit analysis of economic globalization. Handbook of Research on Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Lanford, D., & Quadagno, J. (2016). Implementing ObamaCare: The politics of medicaid expansion under the affordable care act of 2010. Sociological Perspectives, 59(3), 619-639.
Buettgens, M.,Blumberg , L., Holahan J , & Ndwandwe, S. (2016). [Editorial]. The urban Institute
Reisman, M. (2015). The Affordable Care Act, five years later: policies, progress, and politics. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 40(9), 575.
Cohn J. (2020). “The ACA, Repeal, and the politics of backlash.” Health Affairs
Rocco, P., Kelly, A. S., & Keller, A. C. (2018). Politics at the cutting edge: Intergovernmental policy innovation in the Affordable Care Act. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 48(3), 425-453.
Regardless of political affiliation, individuals often grow concerned when considering perceived competing interests of government and their impact on topics of interest to them. The realm of healthcare is no different. Some people feel that local, state, and federal policies and legislation can be either helped or hindered by interests other than the benefit to society.
Consider for example that the number one job of a legislator is to be reelected. Cost can be measured in votes as well as dollars. Thus, it is important to consider the legislator’s perspective on either promoting or not promoting a certain initiative in the political landscape.
To Prepare:
• Review the Resources and reflect on efforts to repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
• Consider who benefits the most when policy is developed and in the context of policy implementation.
By Day 3 of Week 3
Post an explanation for how you think the cost-benefit analysis in terms of legislators being reelected affected efforts to repeal/replace the ACA. Then, explain how analyses of the voters views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies (e.g., Congress’ decisions impacting Medicare or Medicaid). Remember, the number one job of a legislator is to be re-elected. Please check your discussion grading rubric to ensure your responses meet the criteria.
By Day 6 of Week 3
Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days by expanding on their explanation and providing an example that supports their explanation or respectfully challenging their explanation and providing an example.
*Note: Throughout this program, your fellow students are referred to as colleagues.
NURS 6051 Politics, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
RE: Discussion – Week 3 – Initial Post
Collapse
“The ultimate point in participating in policymaking is to improve patient outcomes (Milstead & Short, 2019. p. 39).” Unfortunately, not all who have a hand in the route taken to produce change may have the best interest of the people in mind. Not long after Trump’s administration was in office, talk of repealing and replacing Obamacare began (Milstead & Short, 2019.). While I believe that the reasoning behind the replacing side of this thought may have had decent intentions, such as changes made to catastrophic coverage, I do feel as if the reason for not moving forwarding with repealing and replacing had more to do with fear of a missed reelection than it did with providing quality change for the people (Mach, 2017.) The cost of getting reelected is very high, involving more than just money. Careers and reputations are on the line when reelection is the topic of conversation and I think the Affordable Care Act was too much of a gamble to risk a win. According to Joel Teitelbaum, “The Affordable Care Act passed with no republican signatures (Laureate Education (Producer), 2018).” This means that the republican party would be facing an enormous task with campaigning a repeal or replacement; something that deep pockets may not have been willing to gamble on.
Because of all the technicalities associated with repeal of revision of these programs, putting the changes into play, that is implementing the changes, would run up against the next election cycle in 2018. Inevitable implementation problems might not bode well for the majority party’s ability to maintain its current stranglehold on both Houses of Congress. (Milstead & Short, 2019. p. 40)
Concerning how analyses of the voters views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies, I honestly believe when a win or loss is at stake, a politician is going to say what they think the people want to hear. What the people aren’t always thinking about in the midst of the hype is that just because something is said doesn’t actually mean it is going to happen. Milstead and Short’s comparison of having a bill passed into law with playing a game suits this theory well: “the skill of the players, the expertise of the coaching staff, the financial investment of the team owners/supporters, and team chemistry all contribute to success on the field. The same factors also determine success at the policymaking table (p. 50).”
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Contemporary Issues in Public Health Policy with Joel
Teitelbaum [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Mach, A. L. (2017). Comparison of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the Better Care
Reconciliation Act (BCRA). Congressional Research Service: Report, 1–29.
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric