Health Care Reform: Congressional Politics and the Obamacare Policy Implementation in the United States
AbstractThe changing political climate of Congress and the dilemmas of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in reforming the U.S. health care system is the focus of this work. The author is with the view that most barriers that led to the denial of previous health care reform bills were as a result of the role played by Congressional caucuses and the continuous health care malpractices perpetrated by health care industries in the United States. Healthcare policy making in the United States therefore, owns its hegemonic past from a long standing institutional and ideological politics beginning with Theodore Roosevelt’s failed proposal for a national health care system in 1912. The work further examines Congressional path dependency on health care reform and its role in health care policy adoption and implementation. The obstacles faced by Americans in having a relatively rational type of health care coverage system in the United States will also be discussed. The paper argues that the invisible hands of Congressional caucuses and health care industries continue to play integral parts in health care policy making in the U.S. thereby, frustrating government’s efforts in order to uphold the privileges and profits enjoyed at the expense of tax payers. The puzzle the work seeks to unravel is to showcase whether the fight to repeal the Affordable Care Act by Congress, States and individual plaintiffs will hold in the light of the unprecedented health care burden on Americans. The work explores John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework in public policy making with particular reference to the health care policy reforms in the United States. The author concludes that in order to achieve an efficient market outcome in the case of the prevailing health care externalities in the U.S., the implementation of a policy where mostly everyone is expected to be better off is deemed necessary.
J. Clinton, ‘‘US healthcare and the Affordable Care Act: why the U.S. does not have a UK style National Health Service.’’ Hydra Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences 1.2 (2013): 1-12. Print.
M. Levi, ‘‘A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis.’’ In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure, Ed. Mark I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997. 19-41. Print.
P. Pierson, ‘‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and the Study of Politics.’’ American Political Science Review 94.2 (2000): 251-266. Print.
E. Burgen, ‘‘Congress, Health Care, and Congressional Caucuses: An Examination of the Diabetes Caucus’’ Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 28.5 (2003): 789-820. Print.
K. Patel, and M. E. Reshefsky, Healthcare Politics and Policy in America. 4th Ed. M.E. Sharpe, Inc. New York, 2014. Print.
J. Oberlander, Jonathan. ‘‘Long Time Coming: Why Health Reform Finally Passed.’’ Health Affairs 29.6 (2010):1112-1116. Print.
Himmelstein et al. ‘‘Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study’’ American Journal of Medicine 122.8 (2009): 741-746. Print.
D. Mechanic, ‘‘Some Dilemmas in Health Care Policy.’’ The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 59.1 (1981): 1-15. Print.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a Glance: OECD Indicators, Paris. OECD Publishing. 2013. Print.
S. E. Ubokudom, and Khubchandani, Jagdish. "The Ecology of Health Policymaking and Reform in the United States of America." World Medical & Health Policy 2.1 Article 19. (2010): Print.
T. R. Dye, Understanding Public Policy. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
A. M. David, ‘‘Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance: Twenty Five Years of Progress.’’ Industrial and Labour Relations Review 14.1 (1960): 10-23. Print.
G. Davies, and Martha Derthick. ‘‘Race and Social Welfare Policy: The Social Security Act of 1935.’’ 112.2 (1997): 217-235. Print.
Davis, Karen. ‘‘Inequality and Access to Health Care: Essay in Honour of David P. Willi’s Editorship’’ Health, Society, and the Milibank Quarterly 69.2 (1991): 253-273. Print.
M. McClellan, ‘‘Reforming Payments to Healthcare Providers: The Key to Slowing Healthcare Cost Growth While Improving Quality?’’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 25.2 (2011): 69-92. Print.
S. E. Harrington, ‘‘U.S. Health-care Reform: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’’ The Journal of Risk and Insurance 77.3 (2010): 703-708. Print.
A. N. Hoffer, Jean Marie Abraham and Ira Moscovice. ‘‘Expansion of Coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Primary Care Utilization’’ The Milibank Quarterly 89.1 (2011): 69-89. Print.
Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act. Pub. L. 111-152. 124 Stat. 1029. 30 Mar. 2010. Print.
Rosenbaum, Sara. ‘‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice.’’ In Public Health Rep 126.1 (2011): 130–135. Print.
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Quick Take, Timing Matters: States Waiting for a Supreme Court Decision to Plan an Exchange. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.
----. A Guide to the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision. Kaiser Family Foundation, 29 Jun. 2012. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.
Kingdon, John. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. Updated 2nd Ed. Glenview. IL: Longmann. 2010. Print.
Reid, T.R. The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. New York, Penguin Publishing Group. 2010. Print.
G. Mucciaroni, ‘‘The Garbage Can Model & the Study of Policy Making: A Critique.’’Polity, Palgrave Macmillan Journals 24.2 (1992): 459-482. Print.
W. Wilson, ‘‘The Study of Administration’’ Political Science Quarterly 2.2 (1887): 197-222. Print.
W. Gellner and Eva-Maria Hammer. Policy Research. Munchen: Oldenbourg, 2010. Print.
Majerol, Melissa. Vann Newkirk and Rachel Garfield. ‘‘The Uninsured: A Premier, Key Facts about Health Insurance and the Uninsured in America.’’ Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pub. L. 111-148. 124 Stat. 119. 23 Mar. 2010. Print.Sabatier P. A. Theories of the Policy Process. Colorado: Westview Press, 2007. Print.
Authors who submit papers with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- By submitting the processing fee, it is understood that the author has agreed to our terms and conditions which may change from time to time without any notice.
- It should be clear for authors that the Editor In Chief is responsible for the final decision about the submitted papers; have the right to accept\reject any paper. The Editor In Chief will choose any option from the following to review the submitted papers:A. send the paper to two reviewers, if the results were negative by one reviewer and positive by the other one; then the editor may send the paper for third reviewer or he take immediately the final decision by accepting\rejecting the paper. The Editor In Chief will ask the selected reviewers to present the results within 7 working days, if they were unable to complete the review within the agreed period then the editor have the right to resend the papers for new reviewers using the same procedure. If the Editor In Chief was not able to find suitable reviewers for certain papers then he have the right to accept\reject the paper.B. sends the paper to a selected editorial board member(s). C. the Editor In Chief himself evaluates the paper.
- Author will take the responsibility what so ever if any copyright infringement or any other violation of any law is done by publishing the research work by the author
- Before publishing, author must check whether this journal is accepted by his employer, or any authority he intends to submit his research work. we will not be responsible in this matter.
- If at any time, due to any legal reason, if the journal stops accepting manuscripts or could not publish already accepted manuscripts, we will have the right to cancel all or any one of the manuscripts without any compensation or returning back any kind of processing cost.
- The cost covered in the publication fees is only for online publication of a single manuscript.