On July 4th, 1776, the founding fathers of America assembled to create the Declaration of Independence, escribing that all men were endowed with natural rights, "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and Health care".  Of course that's not correct, what insane human would group health care among unalienable rights endowed to mankind? Well, in the past few years, it seems that the above interpretation of the declaration is the correct logic to many politicians. The emergence of America's need for health care reform has been the hot topic for the past decade. Perhaps there were some serious flaws to the benefits given to citizens. Certainly, change was necessary.  The instated reform, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has stemmed from the idea that health care should be a right to all men. The plan, installed by president Obama, was designed to provide affordable, effective, and most importantly, reliable health care to all citizens of the United States. Dubbed "Obamacare" by oppositional Republicans, Obama's strategy is the most radical attempt to change the health care system to date. The mandates put into effect by the Affordable Care Act, which were designed to accommodate all Americans with health care as a basic human, has only pushed Americans into greater areas of debt, not meeting the demands of America's health. Obamacare has proved itself to be unfit for our country, and in some areas, possibly an unconstitutional act. 

If the Affordable Care Act is so bad, why does it even exist, and how did it make it past the three branches of government to become law? While the intentions behind the reform might be shaky, they are noble at heart. To believe that health care should be a right to all Americans at the least means that a supporters wish to see all Americans with their needs met. Millions of previously uninsured Americans immediately saw effects of the act, as they were provided with health insurance from various sources. For those who previously held plans including  privatized healthcare options, they were not to be effected by the reform, except for a required list of essential coverage items (Obamacarefacts, Obamacare: Pros and Cons of Obamacare).  According to Marek Rudnicki in his article Expected and Unexpected Consequences of the Affordable Care Act, "The positive effects of the ACA can be divided into three broad categories as follows: (1) insurance industry reform, (2) expansion of coverage, and (3) the "triple aim" of improved access, improved outcomes, and reduced costs of care, the last of which will take the most time to evolve". Right off the bat, the reform successfully integrated Rudnicki's second category, with such an expansion of Insurance holders.

Immediate changes became required of all insurance plans. One of the highest held changes of the Affordable Care Act lies in its focus on the care of children. Children of plan holders can be added to plans up to twenty six years of age and plans cannot be dropped by a company due to a child's development of a chronic illness (Obamacare: Simple Enough to Explain to Your Kids). In response to Rudnicki's second point, in theory, Obamacare has cut down on the expense of health care. While it is not possible to simply reduce the cost of health procedures and benefits, the Affordable Care Act sought to drastically lower the cost of benefits by only focusing on the bare essentials. It is important not to simply spend money on tests or luxuries which might not be absolutely necessary (Pariser, Ethical Considerations in Health Care Reform: Pros and Cons of the 

Affordable Care Act). Another method to reduce the cost of coverage was to rid the plans of coverage for privatized health institutions, and only provide for large corporate health facilities, which are regularly cheaper. Just as President Obama said "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier...If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that's going to make you well" (The Heritage Foundation, Obamacare: Top 10 Reasons It's Wrong for America). Obama is exactly right, and he was able to achieve major reductions in the cost of health plans by giving Americans only what they need, but not much more. 

So obviously a lot of people like and support the Affordable Care Act. The benefits of the health care reform are in fact felt by many citizens. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the act is a success, because in reality, the reform has turned out to become one of the greatest problem creating pieces of government mandates America has ever experienced. The root of all of these problems is that the Affordable Cate Act is written to benefit the government more than any of the plan holders.

At the center of health care, the most important thing, or at least what should be the most important thing, is the well-being of the patient or plan holder. Health insurance is supposed to give Americans the resources to be healthy, or to become healthy. Even though this recent reform does give such resources to Americans, it does not make it any easier to obtain the proper health care. What Obamacare has done, is create a new class of "I can't keep my doctor" citizens (Boskin, Obamacare's Troubles Are Only Beginning). To reduce costs, private health providers had to be cut out of the normal plans, so of course, for many to continue to see their previous doctors, they had to purchase more expensive health plans. For those not willing to pay the price, they had to be introduced to new doctors and routines, which for many is an unsettling and unacceptable compromise. For those who previously held privatized health plans, they were promised by Obama that their plans would not be affected, that they only had to follow the required benefits mandate. However, following the passing of the Affordable Care Act, 88.1 million people living with employer or general private health plans saw their coverage disappear. While the act did not single handedly end any of those plans, it did create an environment which greatly favored government funded health plans. It is understood that all 88.1 million of those people had to transition to a completely new and unfamiliar health plan (The Heritage Foundation). Another source of the deterioration of coverage quality comes through those covered by employer insurance plans. As healthcare is reformed, taxes will be placed on employer based health plans to account for minimization of costs. Where in the past, employers were able to give employees an almost whole contribution towards health insurance; such coverage costs have greatly been reduced. The Affordable Health care Act provides more affordable healthcare by forcing you to choose a plan with less benefits, minimizing the perks of your plan. Either you will pay more for a better plan, and will not be able to afford it, or will save money by purchasing the lesser plan, but will suffer through the quality of insurance (Liu, Why Obamacare Will Make Americans Less Healthy and More Insolvent). The moment that the new health plans of Americans have to be described as "suffering" is the moment in which the health system, in my eyes, has failed its stakeholders.

For those who believe that the new health plan allows for individuals to become more flexible with their coverage, we can recall an argument for healthcare. When Obama said "If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that's going to make you well" (The Heritage Foundation). Now, does that sound like a government that is allowing its citizens to pick their own treatment? We are being steered into a one way road, government provided healthcare (Kaylacspan, The Pros and Cons of the Affordable Care Act). 

Now, we can go on and on about the deterioration of health coverage quality, but unfortunately what people really want to know about is money. What is going to happen to their money? Well, the simple answer is that Americans will be losing it everywhere. The easiest example is to just look at what the act has done. The standardization of healthcare across America has created a general health plan. This plan has a long list of benefits that are required, including general maternity care, prescription drugs, and pediatric services. Such plans are in fact perfect for many Americans, who are healthy and don't really need a lot of upkeep to remain healthy. However, for a lot of Americans, who aren't perfectly healthy, they will need to deviate from this health plan more and more, which is going to cost money, a lot of it. Those who feel the effects of such price increase are those previously or continuing to be on company benefits. Or even worse, Americans on standard health plans who find themselves in situations where they need uncovered benefits could end up paying out of pocket. As stated before, the amount of contribution towards healthcare given by companies took a sharp decrease after the reform was passed, putting most of the cost of such benefits on the shoulders of the employees. In Davis Liu's Why Obamacare Will Make Americans Less Healthy and More Insolvent, he uses an effective analogy to describe the dramatic change in employer provided healthcare, relating such health plans to the creation of 401(k) s. When company pension plans became too expensive, they "shifted from pension plans, a defined benefit, into defined contribution plans, 401(k) s, for retirement planning" (Liu). Americans could no longer retire with normal funding, and were forced to live lives with significant damage to their financial investments, or were forced to work through retirement age. Similarly, when the healthcare reform hit, the attitude and planning of Americans under employer health plans flipped, as now they are in unexpected financial positions, paying for health care which used to be almost or completely covered. 

The Affordable Care Act also brings along a whole lot of ethical questions when it comes to the provisions. If you purchase such government maintained health plans, you are providing funding for everything listed under the required benefits section of the act. This includes contraception and abortions. This is not meant to be a discussion of morals; it's a discussion of being reasonable. A large portion of Americans have some moral constraint when considering abortion or contraception, and to ask all Americans to fund something they will never use, or that they openly object, is ridiculous. It's a clear example of people's money not even contributing to them; therefore, it's just a waste of their money (The Heritage Foundation).

Suppose my argument gets to you, deep down, and you decide that you want no part of the Affordable Care Act, so you decide not to purchase a health plan. In another scenario, a family lives on very little money, and simply cannot afford insurance. In even another case, an American is young, healthy, and has no reason to spend money on a health plan. There are many reasons why one might not purchase a plan. So what about these Americans? Well if the government is noble enough to consider health care to be something that should be accessible to everyone, they should understand to those who choose not to be covered. In truth, the success of the Affordable Care Act lies in the fact that it forces Americans to buy such health plans. According to the act, if one chooses not to participate, they will be subject to taxes. Such taxes began at one percent of the individual's income, but recently, this tax has been increased to 2.5% of income (Collica-Cox, The Criminalization of Healthcare). What's happening is that Americans are forced to spend money on something they never purchased. The government is essentially a bully at this point, taking the "lunch money" from Americans, and giving nothing in return. However, this issue goes much further than sounding unreasonable, it's illegal.

The argument of legality over this mandate lies in the definition of American taxes. This fine was called a tax in the Act text. However, this is not a tax, it is a penalty, more so a punishment. When under review by the courts, the issue was brought up. In fact, if the fine is considered a penalty, it is completely illegal. How did it get by? They just called it a tax, and the fine was justified (Collica-Cox). This issue is really left up to the individual's interpretation, but if one considers it to be a penalty, then the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. It exists and there isn't much to immediately do about it. But if there were, what could have been done better? John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, took much interest in weighing in on the reform of healthcare. Specifically, he believes that the ACA is a much too extreme reform, and that changes should be made bit by bit to create a reasonable act. In his article The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare, Mackey elaborates, stating that a big initial change would be to get rid of the required benefits section of the act. Billions of dollars are spent extra on benefits that are useless to many. Another possibility would to create a system in which tax deductible donations can be made, in which proceeds go towards families and those who cannot afford to purchase plans (and are then hit hard by the penalties). Mackey's solutions aren't brand new reforms, but they are possibilities to incorporate into the Affordable Care Act which could get rid of a handful of serious problems (Mackey). 

The Affordable Care Act, created to improve healthcare for Americans by decreasing cost and increasing accessibility, has failed to do so. The reform has created a whole new class of debt, and has given insufficient health care to Americans through unreasonable and unjust methods. The pre-reform state of healthcare in America was full of errors and needed fixing, but certainly not a full overhaul. The incorporated Affordable Care Act should have worked to take the financial burden off of Americans, but in the process, customers suffered through sub-par benefits, this only resulted in citizens spending more money on insurance. To increase accessibility, the act didn't reach out to Americans; it forced them into purchasing plans through unreasonable penalties for those who did not purchase healthcare. It even seems that such penalties could prove to be unconstitutional. The healthcare reform was designed to restore what was supposedly a right of citizens, but only created more problems than it solved. It is evident that a health care plan which provides impractical benefits robs its stakeholders of their money and is surrounded by controversies, simply is not the right plan for America.

  

