medicaid and middle class

Running head: MYTH OF LOBBYISTS 1

Myth of lobbyists

Brittany Ranck

Rasmussen College

Author’s Note: This paper is being submitted on Friday, April 14, 2017 for Laura De La Cruz class Healthcare Planning and Policy Management.

Myth of lobbyists

Part 1

In general definition, a lobbyist is an individual who takes part in an organized strategy attempts to influence the legislators. In the US government system, lobbyists have been present and have since the 1800s sought to influence lawmakers especially over healthcare projects. Lobbyists in the US healthcare system have played a major role as they strive to protect and advocate the interests of the people that they represent. In 2009, the then US president Barrack Obama introduced the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was intended to provide affordable medical services to the people of US. The PPACA was a complete care act was also designed to reduce the cost of healthcare which was escalating hence locking out a high number of people who belonged to the middle and low-income economic classes from accessing healthcare (Rosenbaum, 2011). However, after the bill was proposed and information about the bill was made public through the legislature, lobbyists started to raise different issues with intentions of influencing legislature so as to advocate particular interests.

For example, in the PPACA bill was to use approximately $130 billion of taxes to endorse the bill. The US health insurers, retailers, and medical device makers selected individuals to act as lobbyists and influence the Senate Democratic members to overturn or vote against the use of $130 billion meant for endorsement of the PPACA. The lobbyists claimed that that was a relatively high amount while as there were significant issues that could be sufficiently addressed using public taxes. In this case, the lobbyists were advocating for general public stating that it is illegal and unprofessional to use such a hefty amount of taxes to endorse a bill (Rosenbaum, 2011). Also, the PPACA bill required employers to provide an insurance cover for all full-time workers something that the lobbyists were against claiming that the demand was exaggerated. In this case, the lobbyists were advocating for employers arguing that providing insurance for full-time workers was extremely expensive and unaffordable to many employers considering the high cost of healthcare.

According to Cannan, (2013); in the PPACA bill, there were some ethical issues and moral disputes that were realized. First, with the issue of PPACA bill using a relatively high amount for endorsement purposes; it is evident that there was a moral dispute. The reason is that the bill was supposed to improve healthcare in the US by making healthcare accessible and affordable to many. Hence, using such a hefty amount of $130 million for endorsement shows like the bill has hitches and requires an enormous amount of finances to influence the legislature to pass the bill.

On the other issue of the employers having to pay for medical insurance for full-time workers, the ethical challenge was that this requirement could not have applied to all employers. The reason is that employers are operating big, medium, and others small businesses. The requirement going with the cost of healthcare in the US as well as the amount paid for insurance covers could only be affordable for employers running large businesses. Thus, making such a demand would adversely affect employment. The latter is in the sense that with employers being required to provide medical insurance to full-time employers mandatorily would make employers who cannot afford to reduce the number of full-time employers and hire employees on a contract basis or temporary. Notably, temporary employment can lead to reduced salaries and benefits hence adversely affecting a big number of Americans.

The actions that the lobbyists took concerning different issues raised by the PPACA bill can be said to have both negative and positive effect on healthcare legislation in the US. First, the lobbyists’ action had a positive impact because it made the legislatures who were supporting the bill to have a rethink and review the bill (Hill, et al., 2013). The reason is that some of the issues raised were critical and sensitive and it is only a review of the bill that could have made the passing of the bill possible. The review of the bill hence led to making the bill comprehensive and considerate of all stakeholders' interest.

Secondly, the lobbying action made it possible for the people of American people to air their ideas and suggestions about the healthcare program. This was a positive thing because the government was able to have diverse ideas and this helped in developing a higher quality and an involving program that the people felt that it was meant to help them (Sade, 2012). This is an important action because a health program should involve the people so as to obtain information about their feelings and opinions about the proposed bill. This way, it becomes possible to make the law, people's bill hence making it have adequate support. The third positive effect was that the tax amount that was supposed to be used for endorsement was significantly reduced hence saving public finances for other purposeful activities.

The action caused an adverse impact on the healthcare reform bill because it prolonged the time that the law took before it could be passed. Thus, the benefits that people were supposed to enjoy after the passing and signing of the bill were delayed hence the pains of unaffordable healthcare continuing to adversely the people. Secondly, lobbyists’ action opened a way for a well-intended project to be mixed up with politics hence causing confusion among members of the public (Hill, et al., 2013). This is the reason why as more time was being used, more and more lobbyists to start influencing the legislature in different ways. More so, the action made it hard for the legislature to make a conclusive and well thought out decision because of the constant influence as well as perceiving the issue from different point of view.

Even with the passing of the bill and being signed by the president into law, the action of lobbyists continued to affect the bill negatively. The reason is that even the implementation process was compromised as different lobbyists continued to raise different ideas and opinions. This is an action that causes a mixed reaction among members of the public especially when some lobbyists shared views of what could have been done before the bill was passed to make effective and impactful to all American citizens (Hill, et al., 2013). Thus, the bill failed to receive ample support and as a matter of reality started to realize objection from different interest groups hence significantly reducing its importance and intended effectiveness. The reason is that some stakeholders in the healthcare industry who felt that their interests were not considered failed to play their roles effectively so as to make the program efficient since collaboration of all stakeholders was important to make the bill successful.

Part II

Memorandum

TO: The Supervisor

CC: Head of Department

From: Human Resource Manager

Date: 12/4/2017

SUBJECT: Lobbyists actions and Impacts on the Patient Protection and Affordable Act

This memo is in regards to two main lobbyists' actions and their impact on the PPACA. As you all know, the PPACA was established in 2009, and since then, different issues has been raised by lobbyists representing different stakeholder's interest. Importantly, the lobbyists' actions have in a great way influenced the legislature regarding their support or opposition to the bill. To start with, the lobbyists raised the idea that the PPACA healthcare program was using a relatively high amount of public taxes ($130 million) an amount that could have been used for other programs. Secondly, the lobbyists raised the idea the requirement set by the PPACA program that employers have to provide a medical insurance cover to all full-time employees was inapplicable especially to employers running small businesses.

From the lobbyists' actions, both good and bad effects have been realized that have in different ways affected healthcare legislation in the United States. First, the lobbyists' action has made the legislature to have a review and rethink about the issue and hence making necessary amendments. Also, the lobbyists' action has opened up the public eye and attention on the issue hence making the public to raise ideas. However, the lobbyists’ action has also caused massive delay to the implementation of the program hence making the program more costly. Again, the lobbyist's action triggered confusion over the issues and more so attracting political interests on the issue hence overshadowing the initial intention of the of the plan. Lastly, the lobbyist's action which led to the arouse of many stakeholder's interests being preserved and protected led to resistance from the stakeholders who felt that their interests were never observed hence causing conflict and lack of moral observation in the US healthcare industry.

References

Cannan, J. (2013). A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History. Law Libr. J., 105, 131

Hill, M. D., Kelly, G. W., Lockhart, G. B., & Ness, R. A. (2013). Determinants and effects of corporate lobbying. Financial Management, 42(4), 931-957

Rosenbaum, S. (2011). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: implications for public health policy and practice. Public health reports, 126(1), 130-135

Sade, R. M. (2012). The Health Care Reform Law (PPACA): Controversies in Ethics and Policy, 523-525