the goal of Obama Care, political science homework help

Please replies to my classmates post for example you might start hello nice post ….

post 1 Cary wrote:

To begin, I think it makes life easy to answer the first question – what is the goal of Obama Care? Directly on the front page of the website on Obama Care it states “Obama care’s goal is to give more Americans access to affordable, quality health insurance and to reduce the growth in U.S. health care spending”. (Obama Care Facts, 2016). As with any major piece of policy or legislation you want to have an end goal in sight. However, you are going to have intended and unintended consequences that arise from any decision that is made or handed down from the government.

For employees that receive health care through their employer there was not going to be much change for them except for a little more cost out of pocket and more preventative care. Medicaid is expanding which is beneficial to those who are below the poverty line. Though they are allowing the governor of each state to chose whether they want to participate in the expansion. This may cause issues for residents of a non supportive state. And for those who do not have any insurance they set up online market places for consumers to purchase the coverage they want or need. The addition of a individual mandate requires all people to have insurance or they could face paying a fine for not having it. 

Payment for this new expanded version of coverage for all these people will come out of thin air, taxes will be raised. So to the people who make less the taxes will not be great. Though if you are on the higher end of the spectrum you may end up paying a lot more in taxes. The people who are not paying any more are going to like this plan because they are going to receive more coverage. But the people who earn more money may become frustrated at the situation if rates go up for them. 

There are aspects of Obama care that need fixing to people other options. Some of these fundamentals include; choice, freedom, cost control, portability, and savings. Many people feel they are trapped because they are forced to have some type of insurance but it cost a lot of many which they are not able to afford. Some people are limited to the doctors they can and cannot see based on their plan. I know in many European countries they have free universal health care coverage so there is no worry. That could be a direction America can go to implement it differently. 

I will be honest, I do not have a strong pull either for or against Obama Care. Luckily I have not had many health problems in my life so health care is not something I am passionate about. Based on my research and findings it seems as though I would support it. It makes sense the way the video on the Obama Care website explained it and I think this is helping the greatest amount of people which is always an overarching goal when implementing policy. I know others may feel differently and I respect that. From what I can tell about me and my life, Obama Care does not seem like a bad thing.

Post 2  Quadir wrote this:

The policy goal for Obama care was To make health care obtainable to millions of citizens who may have been denied before. People who fall into the category of low income, disable, and those having preexisting conditions most likely had a hard time finding affordable health care. Also on average women paid more for health care than men (Obamacare.net,2016).  Also if something is questionable about a clients paper work insurance provides were legally able to drop a client without warning (Obamacare.net, 2016).

  The alternative solution willsEnd Unfairness in the Tax Code through Tax Credits to the Uninsured and Individually Insured. Obama care attempted to make health care affordable and available to more citizens.  The simple way to implement it differently wouldnot penalize citizens who chose to not get buy what the government insurance. In a way government forces citizens to buy a service from them or you pay if you do not. So either way you pay them money (Hudson.org, 2016). I agree with most parts of the law especially the part that protects citizens from insurance providers. With that being said I support the intention which was to provide millions of uninsured Americans with the opportunity to get insurance. I do not support that those who are uninsured should be penalized.

Post 3 Demetrius wrote this:

I chose the topic of Gay Marriage. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), 14 same-sex couples filed suits in their home states, respectively (Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee) claiming that those states marriage practices denied them the right to marry or to have marriages that were lawfully performed in another state given full recognition, and therefore, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, states in which the suits were filed, defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 2 years prior, in the Supreme Court case, United States v. Windsor (2013), the court struck down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA- a law that federally recognized marriage between one man and one woman, and allowed states the ability to not recognize same sex marriages) on the grounds that it violated the equal protection principles embodied in the Due process clause of the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Courts ruling effectively gave way to the Federal Government’s decision to no longer recognize DOMA, leaving the decision of gay marriage in the hands of the states. Inevitably, some states chose to recognize gay marriage, and other’s chose not to, which brings me back to Obergefell v. Hodges. In this case, the court ruled that the state bans on gay marriage did violate the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore, was unconstitutional.

Post 4 Brandon wrote this:

In the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 570 US _ (2013), the Supreme Court looked specifically at whether Arizona’s voter registration requirements conflicted with federal law. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires that states use a federal form designated for voter registration. However, Arizona further required that residents provide proof of citizenship, wherein the federal form only requires a declaration made under penalty of perjury. Arizona law made it so voter registration would be denied if the federal form was not accompanied by proof of citizenship. The plaintiffs brought suit against Arizona and ultimately the case was heard by the Supreme Court after navigating through the 9th Circuit, who affirmed the plantiff’s suit. The court held that federal law (the NVRA) preempts Arizona’s requirement to automatically deny registration for not submitting proof of citizenship outside of the federal form itself. That case is a prime example of express preemption. Arizona’s law was unconstitutional because the federal law expressly superseded it. The Supremacy Clause states that the constitution and federal law also supersede state law. This case was significant because it held explicitly that the federal government controlled voter registration through the NVRA. This ruling came as a relief to the millions of Americans who do not possess proof of citizenship. It expressly shot down Arizona’s passing of proposition 200 which mandated proof be attached to the form. The court did not leave Arizona without remedy though. It highlighted that Arizona has alternate means of denying registration through information it retained independently and that would not preempt federal law. In this case, Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court applied a very literal meaning to the law. Federal law required that states “accept and use” the form. The court held that Arizona’s requirement beyond that literal meaning unconstitutional.


What would you reply to these people bout their posts: