Cost-benefit Analysis: Efforts to Repeal/Replace the ACA

Cost-benefit Analysis in terms of Legislators being Reflected Affected Efforts to Repeal/Replace the ACA
Student Name
Course ID
Instructor
Date of Submission
Cost-benefit Analysis in terms of Legislators being Reflected Affected Efforts to Repeal/Replace the ACA
The re-election of legislators can significantly affect the efforts to repeal or replace The ACA. It affects the number of legislators who either support or oppose it in the Senate and House of Representatives. If the number of those in support of The ACA surpasses those of its critics, then it might survive the repeal. However, if the reverse is true, then it might either be completely repealed or replaced. It would be cheaper to have its proponents re-elected based on cost-benefit analysis since they will vote to keep rather than repeal it. Hence the cost-benefit would be enormous as those covered will continue to receive healthcare services.
Indeed, the country is split 50/50 on whether The ACA should be kept, repealed, or repealed and replaced. In my opinion, The ACA should be kept or repealed and replaced given that it has provided coverage to millions of American’s who previously lacked healthcare insurance (McIntyre & Song, 2019). The critics of The ACA argue that it's burdensome to the taxpayer and hence it should be repealed, while others argue that it should be repealed and replaced by universal coverage. I concur with the article that its drawback is the additional tax burden but argue that any other health coverage plan would still demand tax funding. Therefore, whether we opt to keep ACA or replace it with universal healthcare, the tax burden is unavoidable (Blendon & Benson, 2017).
I can't entirely agree with the article’s argument that repealing ACA without a replacement would cost the government taxes. The reason being that the repeal would completely terminate the plan and all financial obligations, and hence the government would suffer no ...