The prevalence of the health reform in the mirror of the Obamacare act is an unconstitutional infringement of the rights of each state in the United States of America. This comes about as a result of the implications of the workability of the program through evaluation of the pros and cons of the health reform program, in which the resultant factors favor the opposition to the program as compared to the proposition. The implications of the program that has seen the prioritization of the affordable care programs and the Medicaid programs over the plight of the consumer is eliciting a long time debate over its viability. Some of the evident cons of the program include the intrusions from the federal government, the increased probability of forcing millions of seniors out of the spectrum of the Medicare advantage, and the possibility of serving jail terms due to failure of compliance. Consequently, the pros of the program include the prevalence of accessible health programs for all citizens. The debate therein forms the essence of this paper (Limbaugh 53).
Illegitimacy of the Obamacare program
Firstly, the need for the opposition of the Obamacare since it is an unconstitutional infringement of the rights of each state. This is a result of lack of the program independence, in which the federal government uses such opportunities to control the governance of the states. Constitutionally, each state in the US is made up of a system of governance with the capabilities of passing laws that affect the livelihood of each citizen. The universality of the Obamacare is a system of infringement upon the powers of each individual state to manage their own affairs. Moreover, the program is a forceful endeavor, which jeopardizes the rights of choice of each individual state. In this regard, there is a need for opposition of the Obamacare since it is a form of crucifixion of democracy at the state level. This implies that each individual state should have the chance of enacting the laws governing the healthcare system in the United States of America as opposed to a universal program (Desilva 53).
On the other hand, the Obamacare program faces the hurdles of intrusion from the federal government. This implies that in enacting the law governing the healthcare program, there is an evident source of interference from the agencies that coined the rules. For instance, the Obamacare program elucidated by the federal government bears the setback of manipulations in favor of high ranking officials, which is a form of jeopardy to the whole affair. In respect of this, the rigidity of the laws in the affordable care act and the Medicaid programs solely lies within the jurisdiction of the central government. This implies that the resultant laws might be faulted in favor of the law makers, especially the federal government. Such interferences necessitate the overhaul of the whole program or even replacement with a fair substitute deal (Desilva 23).
Consequently, the Obamacare program is a source of victimization to the citizens of the United States of America as a result of the jail terms due to failure of compliance. It is evident that the program provides a platform for payment of health insurance taxes. Failure of compliance with such terms is a source of victimization, which might result in serving long jail terms. This implies that as much as the Obamacare program gives assurance to proximal health, contravention with such terms bears dire consequences. This provides room for debate against the program since it is a source of conviction to the beneficiaries (Limbaugh 67).
There is also the need for opposition to the Obamacare program since it is a source of division of citizens in ranks of affordability. For instance, 18 million of the citizens without insurance cover would be forced into the Medicaid program while some would opt for a substitute program. This implies that millions of the citizens will remain uninsured which would validate divisions on the basis of affordability. This implies that for the elucidation of uniformity in granting governmental support to the people and equal resource allocation, such a program as the Obamacare should be opposed. This would lead to the equal representation of both the majority and the minority, resulting in a harmonious program of service for the citizens in each individual state (Limbaugh 78).
Moreover, the Obamacare program would compromise the quality of health program with great fears that by 2019, 4.8 million US seniors would not be able to take advantage of the Medicare. This is clear from the fact that the Obamacare program would be mandated to act in line with the federal rules, which provide room for the exploitation of high-income individuals from the increased taxation programs. This would mean that there would be the need for adjustment of the budgetary costs for the high income individuals, whose salary remunerations would be directed towards the healthcare program amid constraints of meeting other necessary costs. This is a source of exploitation of the individuals as increased taxation forms a source of increased cost (Desilva 33). Exploitation comes about as a result of the increased taxation despite having direct benefits from the program. It is evident that the high income individuals would have to bend to the restrictions of the programs despite having the choice of individual quality healthcare plans. In real essence, the Obamacare program should be perceived with stringent measures of opposition since it would compromise the quality of healthcare programs directed to individuals with capabilities to access of independent and quality care. Moreover, this restriction would force the seniors out of the program despite the requirement of participation which elucidates a forceful plan (Limbaugh 56).
It is also evident that the insurance schemes would attract business oriented malpractices, which would lead to the exploitation of the employees by employers. For instance, if a harmonious insurance scheme is not designed for the control of dividends directed towards insurance plans, the employees would be at a high risk of exploitation from the insurance companies. Moreover, lack of standard policies that could protect the plight of the insured would result in the overpayment of the levies as a result of business orientations structured within the insurance companies. This implies that the program would benefit insurance companies, which are oriented on profitability at the expense of the insurance charges directed to employees through employers. This is also a reason for contention with the issue of opposition to the Obamacare program as it would benefit the participants at the expense of the beneficiaries. This is a source of jeopardy to the whole affair as it leads to the contravention of the original meaning (Limbaugh 45-67).
On the converse, the Obamacare program is a source of solace to the patients with preexisting conditions as it is the only source of health assurance. This means that in opposition to the program, a second thought is a worthwhile affair as it ensures continued healthcare support from insurance companies directed towards patients. For instance, once the program is implemented to the brim, the insurance companies do not have an option but to lead through the healthcare program of a patient, especially those with pre-existing conditions. This also implies that the insured has a higher probability of access to medical services since the insurance company cannot evade the trap of healthcare for a patient no matter the amount of costs due (Burgess 102-113).
On the other hand, the perception of opposition of the Obamacare is not valid with the consideration that it is the only mode of reduction of the percentages of bankruptcy in health related issues. Therefore, the Obamacare program should be upheld to the latter since it is a source of solace to emergency cases for low income earners. In this regard, the Obamacare program is a form of assurance of medical services amid constraints of affordability. The program is a source of unification of the health sector as it does not only guarantee health promotion services to the high income earners but also give room for equal access of healthcare services to the low income earners. Consequently, the program is a source of improved health care system among individual states as it seeks to address the constraints of affordability of healthcare services through setting up assured health plans from the health insurance schemes (Obama 53-78).
From the cons and pros of the issue of opposition to the Obamacare program, it is evident that the program needs a high sense of evaluation. The implications therein show that the program should be perceived with opposition since it is a form of exploitation of the employees from insurance companies. Moreover, the program is a source of infringement of the constitutional rights of each individual state. On the other hand, the essence of opposition to the Obamacare program comes about as a result of the fact that the restrictions within the act lie within the mandate of the federal government. This provides room for intrusion of the federal government into the issues of the medical practice. This implies that in supporting the Obamacare program, there would be a compromise of the quality of health services within the United States of America (Burgess 44-58)