The Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), popularly called Obamacare, has been a very controversial topic since its introduction in 2009. Some people support this act that requires citizens to purchase health insurance; their justification is that it is beneficial to people. Furthermore, car insurance is mandatory for car owners, so why shouldn't health insurance be mandatory for healthy and unhealthy people? However, there are others who are against this reform because they believe it is an unnecessary violation of the freedom to choose whether or not to take out insurance. In this article we will explore the reasons why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not an entirely beneficial reform when you consider three aspects: small business, ethics, and quality care. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes provisions that make it mandatory for businesses to provide their employees with health coverage. This doesn't necessarily sound like a bad thing, right? Most workers not only want, but deserve such benefits from their workplace. However, that benefit may become increasingly scarce as employers find ways to circumvent the type of coverage this reform requires. The first maneuver that employers are implementing is to not provide health coverage to employees. Under this mandate, companies that have more than 50 full-time employees must work within the limits of the Affordable Care Act to provide their workers with health insurance or risk a fine of $2,000 per year for each worker a full time not covered. While this penalty may seem high, the cost of providing specific health coverage to each full-time worker is even higher. Therefore, many employers choose to pay the fine rather than provide health benefits to their employees. During a hearing at the U.S. Small Business Committee on the Affordable Care Act, Matt Tynan, secretary and treasurer of VW of Tynan and Nissan of Tynan, tested this strategy: “Instead of trying to do the best for our employees, it will become a simple mathematical calculation. Is the fine less than the coverage for our people? (25). While this may be tragic, it is the reality of the situation. The same law that required businesses to provide their employees with health insurance also provided a loophole so they didn't necessarily have to comply with the law. By this simple fact, this mandate is actually having the opposite effect than it was originally intended. Another strategy that employers are using as a way to circumvent providing health coverage to workers is to limit the number of full-time workers employed at their companies. workplace, thus limiting the number of employees to whom they must provide health benefits. Anyone who works 30 or more hours per week for a company is considered a full-time worker. So, employers are cutting hours and reducing hiring rates, all with the goal of reducing the amount of money invested in health insurance plans for full-time workers. An article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted this tactic: “In January, nearly half of small business owners with at least five employees, or 45% of those surveyed, said they had to curb their hiring plansdue to the health situation. law, and nearly a third – 29% – said they had been forced to make staff cuts, according to a U.S. Bancorp survey of 3,173 owners with less than $10 million in annual revenue to be released Thursday” ( Needleman & Logun). The act of employers reducing working hours in an effort to reduce the number of employees to whom they must provide health insurance creates a different dimension of problems. This could, for example, create financial problems for workers. To put this more into perspective, let's engage in mathematical calculations then apply the figures to living expenses. Suppose lawmakers succeeded in raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, then a full-time worker would earn $450 after a week of work without imposing taxes. Therefore, this full-time worker's annual salary would be $23,400; this is even before taxes are deducted. Evidently this money is not enough even to be considered middle class. Approximately, the income to be considered middle class should be between $25,000 and $75,000. Cutting workers' working hours will surely plunge them further into financial crisis. You can clearly see how this could have a devastating effect on the American economy. One could argue that such a drastic measure wouldn't even be a factor without the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. But some might also blame greedy and sneaky employers who would hurt their employers just to save a few bucks. In any case, there is a cause and effect relationship here and it cannot be avoided. The United States of America supported the words “liberty” and “liberty”. The Declaration of Independence, the same document that declared our freedom from the tyrannical rule of our mother country, Great Britain, contained the ever-so-popular phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed from their Creator certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Taft-Hartley Act). Additionally, other “inalienable rights” include: speech, religion, the press, and, until recently, the right to choose whether or not to enroll in a health insurance plan. This leads to the ethical question of the Affordable Care Act: Should citizens be required to purchase health care? Of course, no one can truly be certain of all the things the future entails, but does this really justify the arrogance of citizens in purchasing health insurance? The Supreme Court ruling on the matter would certainly say so. Winning in court by a 5-4 vote, the Chief Justice upheld this law by stating that the penalty for not obtaining health insurance is merely a tax: "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance can reasonably be characterized as a tax… Since the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to prohibit it, or to convey the wisdom or fairness of it” (Liptak). or more specifically, the House of Representatives) has the power to impose taxes; however, it is difficult to justify taxing people for things that are personal and do not directly affect those around them. Furthermore, heavy taxation for failure to comply of an act that imposes such a personal decision is quite ridiculous “To Americans who don't pay for insurance and don't haveeligible for Medicaid will be imposed a tax of $95 (or 1 percent of income, whichever is higher) in 2014. The tax will increase substantially to $325 (or 2 percent of income) in 2015 and $695 (or 2.5% of income) in 2016. Individuals with annual incomes over $200,000 and couples with incomes over $250,000 will pay higher taxes to help cover program costs. And, in 2014, families can only deduct medical expenses that exceed 10% of income, instead of the current 7.5% of income” (“What if I don't have health coverage?”). As mentioned above, numerous people have argued that healthcare should be a mandatory insurance that citizens buy a lot, especially since it is mandatory for car owners to purchase car insurance. This is a flawed argument simply by looking at the interconnections. Suppose an accident occurred where the at-fault person did not have automobile insurance (regardless of whether it is illegal), this creates a problem for the victim. The victim must follow a series of steps to recover financial compensation from his/her insurance company for the damages caused by the accident. Even in this case, however, compensation is not always guaranteed and, if obtained, it does not always cover the entire extent of the damage. However, choosing not to purchase health insurance does not directly affect another being. Once again, let's venture into assumptions. In this case, let's say a person who doesn't have health insurance suddenly gets sick with the flu. A friend of the person appears to get the flu. The fact that the other person does not have health insurance does not affect the friend because health insurance companies do not have a policy under which the company is obligated to pay the expenses of a victim to whom his insurer has forwarded his illness. Evidently, the parallel between the need to have car insurance and the need to have health insurance does not entirely correspond. Additionally, there is the question of whether it is ethical for healthy consumers of this plan to be responsible for covering the health care costs of sick consumers with this plan. In essence, this is the reality for young, healthy people who sign up for insurance offered by the Affordable Care Act. In general, young people are healthy, which reduces the need for medical care; on the other hand, older adults generally visit the doctor more and require more treatments per year. Therefore, any healthy consumer covered by the Affordable Care Act will simply be pumping more money into the system that will be used to pay medical bills for seniors on the same plan. An article in the Wall Street Journal exemplifies the need for young people to embrace the Affordable Care Act: “Age is a rough actuarial indicator of health status, and only 24% of enrollees are between the ages of 18 and 34 years old. The ObamaCare economy needs this percentage to rise to about 40% to reach critical mass. Enrollment also skews heavily toward people ages 55 to 64, at 33%” (“The Young and ObamaCare-Less”). For this law to be successful, evidently, there must be more young enrollees than older enrollees, so that younger consumers can shoulder the medical expenses accrued by older adults. Obviously, this isn't fair to younger consumers. Have you ever heard the expression "quality is more important than quantity"? Well, that is not the reality for the Affordable Care Act. There is no denying that the desire to have medical coverage for every American citizen is a charismatic ideal; however, when it comes to the detriment.