Legislators & ACA: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Re-election, and Policy

This discussion post analyzes the cost-benefit analysis of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) within the context of political re-election. The author explores how the repeal and replacement of the ACA, also known as Obamacare, were influenced by legislators' concerns about their chances of re-election. The post highlights the economic implications of the ACA, including government expenditure, insurance coverage, and potential impacts on voting patterns among different income groups. The author references the financial and economic activities of the government, underscoring the political motives behind policy decisions. The analysis includes the impact of the ACA on the financial and economic activities of the government. The post also considers how analyses of voter views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies like Medicare or Medicaid. The author references several academic sources to support the arguments presented.

Running Head: Cost benefit analysis in the Politics
Cost Benefit Analysis in Politics
Affordable Care Act 2010
SystemJP
[Pick the date]

Cost benefit analysis in the Politics
Cost benefit analysis in the Politics
Cost-benefit analysis in the sector of legislation and legislators revolves around the
aim of being re-elected in the next election. Changes in the laws and legislation in form of the
repeal and replacement by the political leaders affect their chances of the re-joining on the
post in the next election (Blumberg, Buettgens, & Holahan, 2016). A good example is cost-
benefit analysis of Affordable Care Act 2010, popularly known as the Obama-care Act was
designed to manage the affordable health care services to the employed in the state with a life
cover in form of insurance that act repealed without any replacement in the year 2017
(Saltzman & Eibner, 2016).
Repealing of the ACA without any replacement is positive to reduce the government
expenditure over the insurance agencies to secure the employees; it will reduce the cost of
healthcare expenditure in the government, which is estimated to gain by $90.9 billion in 2021
and $927 billion between 2017 and 2026. On the other hand, it will increase the numbers of
uninsured and medically unsafe people in the country, which is estimate to rise by an increase
of 81 per cent that is 24 million by 2021 (Buettgens, Blumberg, Holahan, & Ndwandwe,
2016).
However repealing will reduce the government expenditure over the healthcare but it
will also affect the increased rate of uninsured people and negatively it will affect the voting
from the middle and lower age income employees by reducing chances of re-electing again.
Repeal of ACA affected the financial and economic activities to the government to
secure the holding of the position in the next election. As their motive is to make the America
rich Again by focusing the development of the American citizens and by investing the entire
government fund on the development of American citizen only and this act of politicians
1

Cost benefit analysis in the Politics
must to exhaust the possibilities of their probabilities for reappointment in future (Nuzum,
Collins, & Abrams, 2017).
References
Blumberg, L. J., Buettgens, M., & Holahan, J. (2016). Implications of Partial Repeal of the
ACA through Reconciliation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Buettgens, M., Blumberg, L. J., Holahan, J., & Ndwandwe, S. (2016, June). The Cost of ACA
Repeal. Retrieved March 04, 2020, from urban.org:
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/81296/2000806-The-Cost-of-the-
ACA-Repeal.pdf
Nuzum, R., Collins, S., & Abrams, K. M. (2017, July 07). How Would Repeal and Replace of
the Affordable Care Act Affect Your State? Retrieved March 06, 2020, from
commonwealthfund: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2017/how-would-
repeal-and-replace-affordable-care-act-affect-your-state
Saltzman, E., & Eibner, C. (2016). Donald Trump’s health care reform proposals: Anticipated
effects on insurance coverage, out-of-pocket costs, and the federal deficit. The
Commonwealth Fund, 1-14.
2