The 2016 Presidential election has been arguably the most stress inducing election for Americans in recent history. And for a myriad of reasons. Regardless of whether you stand with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the reality is that much of President Barack Obama’s work within the White House is unfinished.
Foreign policy is a continued point of contention, as issues like Syrian refugees and defeating ISIS loom overhead. Climate change has been a bewildering experience for anyone who doesn’t correlate the fate of the planet with their treatment of it. And healthcare reform is still a work in progress, where those who started without are now catching up. The latter is seemingly the most problematic, considering the trickle down effects of no healthcare manifest themselves from the ER to health insurance company boardrooms. And if either Clinton or Trump enters office, the results will be polar opposites.
It was place of vulnerability, not to mention no clear end to those with chronic health issues.
Obama cited in this message that he would “tackle” the weakened healthcare system in a way comparable to that of Theodore Roosevelt the century prior, during the genesis of Social Security and the initial concept of providing healthcare for all Americans. It was dubbed “Obamacare,” a movement fueled by the Affordable Care Act, and 2010 was the year that it would hit the ground running. The ACA has had multiple facelifts over the years.
Now, Americans are entitled to be offered minimum essential coverage from either their employer (provided they were a full-time equivalent or dependent of one) or via the Health Insurance Marketplace. For those Americans could not “afford” healthcare could be assisted by way of subsidies, including the Premium Tax Credit, used to alleviate some of the burdens of costs.
In the face of that change, healthcare companies within the Marketplace have complained of financial hits caused by the ACA. Companies like UnitedHealth, Aetna, and Humana have withdrawn from many major markets (and smaller ones), creating little or no competition amongst companies in certain markets, thereby undermining the good work of the ACA by forcing higher premiums to make up for the incurred losses.
Additionally, the 2016 buzzword for the ACA was penalty. As companies were still getting to know the ACA procedures and relying a little too heavily on good faith, they faced being nailed with penalties for lacking in ACA compliance. It has forced all involved parties to tighten up,but with the election closing, the question is “For what?”
Six years since its passing, and the ACA has hit its stride. Now at a record low of only 8.6% of uninsured Americans—the lowest number in history, the Affordable Care Act is now in an advantageous position of being fully realized with the wrinkles being slowly ironed out and proper channels in place.
It could all theoretically vanish after Election Day.
During the 2016 primaries, on the Democratic side both Clinton and Sanders were on the right tracks but the wrong trains. Sanders had a more socialistic view of healthcare, whereas Clinton had simply a revamp of her 1993 proposal of “Hillarycare” back when she was First Lady (only without the healthcare card she proposed over two decades prior). By the Presidential election cycle, we began to truly understand what her plans were for Hillarycare 2.0. Despite previous umbrage to certain aspects, Clinton is for the Affordable Care Act. Her modifications are arguable “fixer uppers” that Obama may or may not have rectified had he sat for a theoretical third term as President.
These include correcting the “family glitch,” where individuals’ families are accounted for in determining eligibility for government subsidies based on their employer-sponsored healthcare offering, policing rate hikes from healthcare insurance corporations, offering more subsidies to address out of pocket costs, repealing the thorny Cadillac Tax, offering a public option where the healthcare insurance marketplace is too limited, and even offering healthcare to immigrants without legal status within the country.
Other items like expanding Medicaid as well as the ages of Medicare and upping the premium tax subsidies are on her to-do list. This sounds like a complete dream to anyone who feels that healthcare is a right and not a privilege and a nightmare to anyone wondering how it will all be funded. Trump, on the other hand, has maintained vagueness in his approach to healthcare.
Like Trump’s proposed cliffhanger at the close of his speech during the third and final Presidential debate as to whether he would concede of the polls showed his defeat, his vague, over-simplistic and unrealistic approach to everything governmental has been evident in his concepts on healthcare. Repealing the Affordable Care Act has been the most firm decision he’s made (keeping the “good parts” as he hints but offers no clues as to what those “good parts” may be), along with the threat of defunding Planned Parenthood which would provide a whole other dimension of issues to women’s reproductive health. His leaning heavily on HSAs or Health Savings Accounts, produces the notion that if you can afford to save up for healthcare, then you can use that tax-free dollars to pay for healthcare. It’s a head scratcher, along with the dubious plans for allowing the purchase of healthcare across state lines, block grants to states for Medicaid, and providing no limits for doctors’ specialized treatments without a plan for how they will be paid.
It also brings to light the either emphasis or negligence of compliance. Clinton’s plans include placing heavier attention to the details of the Affordable Care Act, as this past year has shown employers slowly learning that they must be compliant to the ACA’s mandates (from timely filings to offering proper affordable insurance) or else they’ll pay heavy fees. Clinton aims to maintain that compliance, in conjunction with best business practices, including making drug companies and prescribers thoroughly check the hands that are receiving controlled medications, along with drug companies forced to being more transparent with drug costs. Trump need not worry about compliance, as he plans to repeal the ACA, but has thrown some bits into the ether regarding health insurance companies’ compliance with providing several options for healthcare plans to individuals. The how? remains in question.
It’s estimated that over 20 million Americans will lose their healthcare if Trump enters office, with an 2:31 am EST, November 8, 2016, per FiveThirtyEight.com, Clinton leads Trump with a 71.9%% chance of winning, compared to Trump’s 28%.
Clinton has 48.6% of the popular vote (302.4 electoral votes), with Trump at 45.0% of the popular vote (234.7) electoral votes).
Other sources like 270towin.com show stats of Clinton 322 electoral votes to Trump’s 216 electoral votes.
With the news two days only before the election from the FBI admitting that they will not reopen Clinton’s email investigation after causing a firestorm only ten days earlier with the letter to Congress that they were investigating a newfound trove of emails linked to Clinton, the pendulum continues to swing in Clinton’s favor. The LA Times predicts that Clinton will have 352 electoral votes, with Trump having 186.
While the projections are simply that, they all seem in various ways to reflect Clinton’s favor. That is good news for the ACA. This will also mean that not only will Americans have a greater access to affordable healthcare, but corporations (from drug companies, to healthcare providers to employers) will be urged to place a higher impetus on ACA compliance, thereby expanding the range of services provided by third party quality control agencies. It won’t be an end to the Affordable Care Act; rather it will feel like it’s just getting warmed up.
However, we are not out of the water yet. The race is uncomfortably close for any person who favors the Affordable Care Act in view of the stark contrast between Trump and Clinton. It goes without saying that every vote counts, and regardless of previous political stances, we must choose wisely for the health of our nation—literally and figuratively.