The issue of health insurance has been debated in the U.S. legal environment for quite a while, yet the policy that could potentially replace it has not been defined fully. In the course of the meeting between the Kaiser Health News correspondents, the opportunities that the Affordable Care Act Replacement Bill proposed by the Republican Party could produce when implemented in the context of the U.S. economic and financial environment (Kaiser Health, 2017).
Aimed at exploring advantages and disadvantages of the Affordable Care Act Replacement Bill, the meeting revolved around the need to address some of the most blatant failures of the Affordable Care Act, such as the provision of insurance that, even if bought, would still be useless due to its inherent flaws (Fox, Lee, Mattingly, & Barrett, 2017). Thus, the meeting stressed the need to provide the regulation that could be more efficient in its attempt at providing healthcare coverage for American citizens.
Mary Agnes Carey and Julie Rovner, who are Kaiser Health News Correspondents, shed a lot of light on the problems that the application of the Affordable Care Act entails. While being comparatively small, the committee has provided a substantial set of arguments and carried out an in-depth study of the problem, as it can be seen in the line of reasoning that both Mary and Julie use. While it was not the goal of the committee to prove the complete pointlessness of Obamacare, the latter was still subjected to rather harsh yet admittedly fair criticism.
The issue of budget regulation and the standards for its reconciliation were addressed specifically during the meeting, thus, pointing to massive financial issues that the Affordable Care Act entailed. Therefore, the issue of the Affordable Care Act sustainability was raised as one of the primary areas of concern that needed to be managed within the shortest amount of time possible.
During the meeting, the bill that could potentially substitute Obamacare was discussed. Although the concept of Obamacare is fairly flawed in its nature, it still provides a solution to one of the most topical problems of the contemporary American society, i.e., the necessity to provide people with legitimate healthcare services and the insurance that covers them. Protests against Obamacare have been especially vigorous in the Republican Party, the members of which have been strictly opposed to the concept, hence the idea of a bill that could replace it (Kaplan, 2017).
Therefore, a discussion about an alternative that Republicans propose and the benefits of the new regulation had been overdue when the meeting of Kaiser Health News correspondents actually took place (Kaiser Health, 2017). The committee process, in turn, involved a detailed analysis of the points that made the Replacement Bill a rather poor substitute for Obamacare.
Although the meeting primarily implied a dialogue between the representatives of the Republican Party and their Democratic Party opponent, it could also be argued that the people whom the specified parties represented in the Congress were also among the primary stakeholders of the meeting. Since the outcomes of the discussion had a direct and quite massive impact on the U.S. population, in general, it would be reasonable to assume that they were among key stakeholders as well. Nonetheless, the stances of the opposing sides could be described as justifying the existence of the Affordable Care Act because of the opportunities that it offered to the American residents and claiming that Obamacare was inherently pointless and flawed.
The meeting involved a range of peculiar interactions, the ones between the representatives of the Republican Party being the most interesting ones. The specified conclusion might seem surprising since it would be sensible to expect a more enticing outcome of the conversation between the Republican Party and the Democrats, yet their exchange was rather predictable. However, ti was the dialogue between Mary Agnes Carey, Julie Rovner, and the host that sparked a more lively discussion of the problem and helped focus on some of the most evident problems with Obamacare. For example, the evidence concerning the lack of opportunities for finding a healthcare practitioner with the help of Medicaid as an essential component of Obamacare needs better scrutiny.
Aimed at studying the problems of Obamacare and proving that a change in the current healthcare insurance system is needed, the meeting was quite a success. It resulted in the overview of key financial and health-related concerns that the current Affordable Care Act rises, as well as the ways in which a replacement thereof would help. The meeting offered a profound study of the difficulties that people face when using the suggested Obamacare system. In addition, the opportunities for improving the existing healthcare insurance system by replacing Obamacare with a more sensible framework were summarized.
Although the meeting did not spark any immediate changes in the American healthcare insurance system, it did provide the foundation for numerous discussions and in-depth analysis. Even though Obamacare works currently, its disadvantages are evident since they affect people’s health directly. Thus, Obamacare has to be replaced with a substitute. The Affordable Care Act Replacement Bill, in turn, could offer an impetus for positive change.
Fox, L., Lee, M. J., Mattingly, P., & Barrett, T. (2017). . CNN. Web.
Kaiser Health. (2017). . Web.
Kaplan, T. (2017). ‘. New York Times. Web.