President Joe Biden escalated his partisan rhetoric on January 19 during his first news conference in 10 months, laying the blame for his stalled agenda at the feet of Republicans and suggesting on the eve of his first anniversary that he has been surprised by their intransigence. “I honest to God don’t know what they’re for,” Biden said at one point during his nearly two-hour exchange with reporters. “What is their agenda?” He said the Republican Party is thoroughly cowed by former president Donald Trump. “Did you ever think that one man out of office could intimidate an entire party where they’re unwilling to take any vote?” Biden asked.
The shift intensified a harsher tone that President Joe Biden has taken this year toward Republicans, starting with an address commemorating the January 6 Capitol assault and continuing in Georgia last week with a blistering address suggesting that those who do not support the current voting rights bills will be remembered in history alongside such notorious racists as Jefferson Davis, the leader of the Confederacy. The sharp critique represents a major shift from Biden’s message during the presidential campaign when he said that Republicans would have an “epiphany” and that partisan gridlock would ease if he took office. And it signals a shift from an inaugural year focused on congressional action to a hard-fought election year with control of Congress at stake.
President Joe Biden also offered unvarnished thoughts about Russia’s intentions toward Ukraine, suggesting that President Vladimir Putin would probably invade the country. He suggested the US response would be different if Moscow launches a “minor incursion” vs. a massive ground invasion, causing a furor that quickly prompted the White House to clarify that he was distinguishing a military and non-military assault. The President also made news by confirming rumors that he plans to break up his roughly $2 trillion social welfare and climate legislation, called the Build Back Better package, into smaller bills.
The roughly two-hour exchange was much longer than expected or typical for a presidential news conference, and President Joe Biden called on far more reporters than he usually does. He joked about staying there for hours and even suggested that the journalists keep their questions short so he could answer more of them. Biden gave the news conference in a moment when his polls are falling and he faces a nation that is exhausted by a lingering pandemic and economic uncertainty.
A recent Gallup poll showed that just 40 percent of Americans approve of the job that President Joe Biden is doing, while 56 percent disapproved. That’s the lowest rating for any recent president at their one-year mark, aside from Trump, whose rating was a few points lower. He noted several times that the country is not where he had hoped and expected it to be. When asked if he’s done a good job unifying Americans he gave a nuanced answer. “The answer is, based on some of the stuff we’ve got done, I’d say yes,” Biden said. “But it’s not nearly unified as it should be. Biden telegraphed that he will spend more time traveling the country and talking to voters and less time embroiled in prolonged negotiations with Congress. “The public doesn’t want me to be the president-senator,” said Biden, who spent 36 years in the Senate before becoming Barack Obama’s vice president. “They want me to be the president and let senators be senators.”
The President’s January 19 news conference took on greater significance than usual because it came on the eve of the anniversary of his first full year in office and also a moment when many of Joe Biden’s plans face turbulence. In what appeared to be a carefully calculated message, he repeatedly excoriated Republicans, accusing them of having no goal except opposing him, no leader except Trump, and no agenda at all. “I did not anticipate that there would be such a stalwart effort to make sure that the most important thing was to make sure Biden didn’t get anything done,” he said. “What are Republicans for? What are they for? Name me one thing they are for.”
A Federal Judge in California ruled against President Trump’s recent immigration executive order this week.
A federal judge on November 20 ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter how they entered the US, dealing a temporary setback to the President’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border. Judge Jon Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Judge Tigar wrote in his order.
As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest part of the US border, President Donald Trump signed an executive order two weeks ago that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, Trump said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the US borders. Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment. But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the US, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.
After the judge’s ruling on Monday, Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, said, “The court made clear that the administration does not have the power to override Congress and that, absent judicial intervention, real harm will occur.” “This is a critical step in fighting back against President Trump’s war on asylum seekers,” Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the other organizations that brought the case, said in a statement. “While the new rule purports to facilitate orderly processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection has a longstanding policy and practice of turning back individuals who do exactly what the rule prescribes. These practices are clearly unlawful and cannot stand.”
President Donald Trump, when asked by reporters about the court ruling on Tuesday, criticized the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal-leaning court where the case will likely land, calling it a “disgrace.” He labeled Judge Tigar an “Obama judge.” Trump Administration officials signaled that they would continue to defend the policy as it moved through the courts. “Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year,” Katie Waldman, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, and Steve Stafford, the Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement. They said the president has broad authority to stop the entry of migrants into the country. “It is absurd that a set of advocacy groups can be found to have standing to sue to stop the entire federal government from acting so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled,” they said. “We look forward to continuing to defend the executive branch’s legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”
In the 2005 article “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate,” Bonnie Steinbock puts forward an argument stating that abortion is in fact morally justified in most cases. Steinbock begins by declaring that her belief on the morality of abortion is based on two considerations which are the moral status of the embryo and the fetus and the burdens imposed on women through pregnancy and childbirth. Steinbock also puts forward the interests view, which limits moral status to people who have interests in their future and restricts the possession of interests to people who are conscious of the world around them. Following the logic presented by the interest view, Steinbock argues that fetuses are not conscious enough to understand their interests and that it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus when there is an adequate reason for doing so. Steinbock further discusses the view on abortion possessed by Don Marquis and argues that it is wrong because it attempts to claim that a fetus is a conscious living being and that it would be immoral to kill an unborn child even though they have no awareness of their interests and the outside world.
Bonnie Steinbock first discusses the moral status of a fetus. Many opponents of legalized abortion tend to argue that abortion is an unethical practice because they view it as the killing of an innocent person. Additionally, abortion opponents do not see any difference between a fetus during the early stages of pregnancy and a newborn child. Following such logic, it could be argued that if it is morally wrong to kill a young child, it would also be morally wrong to kill a fetus through abortion. In contrast, Steinbock asserts that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a newborn baby because fetuses are not sentient beings because they cannot experience pain or pleasure. Steinbock states that being sentient is important because non-sentient beings lack interests of their own. As such, non-sentient beings should not be categorized among those whose interests people are required to consider in their day-to-day actions.
The main point of criticism regarding the interest view, according to Bonnie Steinbock, is that opponents tend to ask why a being must experience or feel anything to have a unique set of interests. Steinbock argues that the main flaw with this approach is that it misconceives the interest view because the interest view can acknowledge that certain non-sentient beings and objects have value and that people have all kinds of reasons to protect and preserve any non-sentiment beings and objects. Additionally, the main difference between sentient and non-sentient beings is that because non-sentient beings have no feelings and cannot be made to suffer, it does not matter what is done to them and in people deciding what they can do, they should not consider their interests because they do not have any. The interest view relates to the morality of abortion because most scientists agree that fetuses in the early gestation phase do not have feelings and understand their interests and are thus non-sentient beings. Considering such factors, Steinbeck concludes that a non-sentient being such as a fetus not deprived of anything by being killed and that abortion is thus not morally wrong.
Bonnie Steinbock then discusses her criticisms against the potentiality principle. Through the potentiality principle, opponents of abortion argue that the potential of a fetus to become a sentient being with a unique set of interests and awareness of its future is enough to ascribe moral status to a fetus and to give it the same rights as any other person. One such flaw with this approach is that it does not follow from the fact that “something is a potential x that should be treated as an actual x.” Additionally, this argument also raises the question that if abortion is morally wrong, then the use of contraceptives such as spermicide is also unethical because it prevents a potential person from being born. Considering that few abortion opponents are willing to accept such a conclusion, Steinbock states that they are often forced to either give up or modify their overall argument.
Bonnie Steinbock criticizes Don Marquis’s argument against abortion by highlighting his objections to the interest view. Marquis holds that his opinion is correct because it can explain why it is morally wrong to kill people who are temporarily unconscious. For example, Marquis asks if it is morally right to kill a non-sentient being, then how come it is wrong to kill a person in a comma considering that the individual is not conscious or sentient. If people appeal to the future conscious state of the individual in a comma, then the same argument can apply to a fetus, which will become conscious and sentient if we allow it to develop. Steinbock argues that two responses can be made to the objection to the interest view proposed by Marquis. The first is that there is a difference between a temporarily unconscious person and a fetus because the person who is unconscious had past experiences and an interest in its future. On the other hand, a fetus does not have past experiences and lacks a stake or awareness in its future. The second response is that people’s interests are not limited to what they take an interest in. According to Steinbock, if the non-conscious fetus is not interested in continuing to live, we could argue that continued existence it not in its best interest considering its personal desires.
The ethical theory that is explored by Bonnie Steinbock is the idea of Kantian ethics. Kantian ethics argues that for a person to qualify for moral consideration, they must be able to use their reasoning skills to derive and understand moral issues. As such, the only people that would qualify for moral consideration under Kantian ethics would be individuals who were developed enough to have basic reasoning skills and a basic understanding of what is morally right or wrong. Steinbock’s position on the morality of abortion aligns with Kantian ethics because she argues that an unborn fetus lacks reasoning power and an awareness of what in fact is ethical. Considering her view that fetuses lack reasoning powers, Steinbock would argue that fetuses do not qualify for moral consideration and that it is not morally incorrect to destroy a fetus through an abortion.
Overall, the argument put forward by Bonne Steinbock in “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate” includes several strengths and weaknesses. The main weakness of Steinbock’s argument is that it asserts that a fetus is not a sentient being and thus is not considered a moral agent. The main flaw with this argument is that scientists have yet to reach a full conclusion regarding whether a fetus can feel pain or is conscious of the world around them. If a fetus can, in fact, feel pain, then the argument posed by Steinbock that a fetus is not a living thing would, in turn, be invalid. The main strength of Steinbock’s argument is that she raises the question of the differences between sentient and non-sentient beings. The differences between sentient and non-sentient beings are often ignored by most contemporary philosophers, and many people tend to ignore the distinctions between both categories. By highlighting their differences, Steinbock is seeking to frame the debate regarding the morality of abortion in an entirely different light that is often ignored by recent studies on ethical issues.
In the 1989 essay “Abortion Is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is morally wrong. Marquis feels that most contemporary philosophers ignore the issue of the morality of abortion because of their affiliation with secular higher education settings, which makes them believe that the anti-abortion viewpoint is “a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument.” In contrast to contemporary philosophers, Marquis argues that abortion is unethical and that it is in the same category as killing an innocent adult.
To develop an argument on the unethical nature of abortion, Don Marquis states that we must ask the question of why it is morally wrong to kill someone. Marquis determines that what makes killing wrong is the effect that it has on the victim itself. Marquis argues that loss of one’s life “deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments” that they will have in their life, and that would have defined their future. As such, killing an innocent person is wrong in Marquis’ opinion because it prevents a person from following through on the activities and experiences that would have defined their future life and helped to make them stand out as an individual. Te idea that the elimination of a person’s future is what makes killing wrong is illustrated by the fact that killing denies the victim of more than any other crime does.
Don Marquis next asserts that the idea that the loss of a person’s future potential is what makes killing morally wrong gains further support when several its implications are examined. The first two implications are that his theory would support the belief that it would be wrong to kill beings that are members of other species and that the futures of some animals are like the prospects of people and that it is thus immoral to take their lives. The third implication discussed by Marquis is the claim that the loss of one’s future is the “wrong-making feature of one’s being killed does not entail that active euthanasia is wrong.” On the other hand, Marquis asserts that it is the value of a human’s future which makes killing wrong in this theory. The fourth implication is that the account of the wrongness of killing entails that it is immoral and unethical to kill children and infants because “we do presume that they have futures of value.”
Don Marquis mentions that the potential future of a standard unborn child includes a series of experiences that are identical to an ordinary adult or young children. Considering that one can assert that it is immoral to kill a person after birth because it denies a person of their future potential, Marquis states that similar logic can be used to argue that abortion is morally wrong. The structure of Marquis’ anti-abortion argument is defended through a comparison with the case against inflicting pain on animals, which assumes that it is morally wrong to inflict pain on others. Both the argument against abortion and the argument against causing pain to animals begin with a premise regarding what it is wrong to do to another person and the consequences of a wrong action. Additionally, both recognize that the “wrong-making feature of such immoral actions is a property of actions sometimes directed at an individual other than postnatal human beings.” Marquis then argues that if the structure of the argument against the wrongness of inflicting pain on animals is correct, then the argument against abortion would be right as well.
Don Marquis next mentions that abortion can be justified on certain grounds such as if the birth of a child would seriously threaten the life of the expectant mother. Even if abortion would be morally acceptable under a rare case, Marquis argues that they would only be admissible if they were to occur early in the pregnancy. Marquis also looks at the morality of contraception and its relation to the belief that killing denies an individual of their future potential. Even though contraception prevents the actualization of a possible future of value for a person that may potentially be conceived, Marquis argues that contraception is not immoral in practice. Marquis feels that contraception is not immoral because there is no identifiable subject of the loss of their future and value in the case of contraception.
The ethical theory put forward by Don Marquis in “Abortion Is Immoral” is the idea of Utilitarian ethics. Utilitarian ethics stipulates that all pains and pleasures are morally significant and that the most morally right course of action to take is the one that limits suffering and maximizes pleasure for all people in society. Following such logic, Utilitarianism would argue that both sentient or non-sentient beings are subjects of moral consideration and that it is immoral to harm anyone. It can be reasoned that the argument by Marquis is related to Utilitarianism because he argues that abortion increases suffering because it prevents the opportunity for unborn children from realizing their full potential as they develop and mature. Additionally, Marquis also considers unborn children to be full subjects of moral consideration and feels that they are entitled to the same rights as all other people within society.
The argument put forward by Don Marquis in “Abortion Is Immoral” includes several strengths and weaknesses. The main weakness regarding his argument is that it does not consider the belief that fetuses lack the awareness to take an interest in their future. Scientists often debate over whether fetuses have a conscious understanding of their future and the world surrounding them. If fetuses lack an understanding of their future and the world around them, then they do not take an active interest in their future. Assuming that fetuses lack an understanding or interest in their future, one can make the argument that it is not morally wrong to kill them through an abortion. On the other hand, the main strength of Marquis’ argument is that it considers the fact that killing an innocent person is morally wrong because of the effect that it has on themselves. By killing a person, you eliminate any hope that they may have for their future and attempt to dehumanize and devalue people by making them out as mere objects within society.
Throughout the 1980 book The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America, Drew McCoy attempts to explore the competing economic visions in the U.S. during the aftermath of the Revolutionary War and how different leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton had conflicting ideas regarding what economic system would be the most suitable for the newly independent nation. Hamilton advocated a commercialized economy in which manufacturing was fundamental. On the other hand, Madison and Jefferson felt that an agrarian economy would be best for the U.S. and would ensure its success as a nation. McCoy explores the relationship between political economy and morality and how this definition shifted during early American history. Furthermore, McCoy argues that the economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were short-lived and that several factors prevented them from becoming permanent.
In the first chapter, McCoy discusses the debate during the 18th Century over economics and morality and how they would later influence the founding fathers. By the mid-18th Century, Europe was undergoing a commercial and industrial revolution that led to profound changes in its economic conditions. In addition, the rise of industrialization raised many questions about its effect on society and helped to alter the opinion regarding luxury goods. Since the middle ages, luxury was considered to be a corrupting influence in society and a danger to public welfare. However, the 18th Century marked a transitional period in the perception of luxury goods. As a result of increased materialistic impulses, some began to redefine the meaning of luxury and explore the societal implications of the increased emphasis on luxury goods.
McCoy describes the reaction to the changes in the economy by philosophers during the 18th Century. A major critic of the new social order was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued that the commercialization of society would have a harmful effect on society and would promote a multitude of artificial needs and desires in men, to which they would become enslaved. Furthermore, Rousseau felt that the drive for status and wealth would never fully satisfy individuals and that it would increase social inequalities. In contrast, David Hume defended the commercialization of society that came as a result of the industrial revolution. Hume argued that the advancement of commerce, mechanical arts, liberal arts, and fine arts were interdependent on one another. As a result of their interconnection, Hume argued that the advancement of commerce would be beneficial to society by establishing a more refined culture. The differences in opinion regarding the growth of commerce and its effects on society would soon influence the debate in post-Revolutionary America over which type of political economy would develop in the new country.
McCoy first discusses the economic ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who served as Treasury Secretary under George Washington. The political economy of Hamilton advocated an aggressive expansion of American commercial interests and the development of a strong manufacturing sector with the cooperation of a strong federal government. Hamilton’s economic plan called for a funding of the national debt and the incorporation of the Bank of the United States, which would help the new government establish its credit and encourage the investment of private capital in the development of a commercial sector. Hamilton viewed the development of commercial relations with Great Britain as a way to supply America with the capital and credit that could ignite the economic growth that he envisioned .
Additionally, Alexander Hamilton felt that a manufacturing economy was a sign of social progress and that the social inequalities resulting from it were inevitable. Proponents of the Hamiltonian system argued that a growing manufacturing sector would also increase individual liberty by giving people more freedom in choosing an occupation. Hamilton’s economic policy was further pushed forward by the Jay Treaty, signed between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1794. In addition to averting a major war between both countries, the Jay treaty opened up limited trade between the U.S. and several of Britain’s colonies. The resulting increase in foreign trade helped to fuel further the commercial revolution and made its eventual spread to the U.S. increasingly inevitable.
In contrast to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison advocated a political economy that focused on agriculture and the growth of a household goods industry as opposed to rapid commercialization. The main component of Madison’s political economy was westward expansion and national development across space rather than across time. By encouraging a spread across western lands, Madison argued that the U.S. would remain a nation of industrious farmers who could market their surplus crops overseas to purchase manufactured goods from Europe. As a result, America could remain a young and virtuous country and at the same time offer a market for advanced manufactured goods from Europe. Unlike Hamilton, Madison believed that the rise of industrialization in countries such as Great Britain was a sign of moral and societal decay. He concluded that Hamilton’s plan threatened to subvert the principles of republican government and would lead to the “Anglicization” of the American government.
McCoy then goes on to describe the political and economic aspirations of Thomas Jefferson after his election in 1800. Jefferson described his election as a return to the original values and ideals of America that were overturned and repudiated under Federalist rule. The main aspects of Jefferson’s political economy included his advocacy of western expansion as a way to encourage the continued strength of a primarily agrarian economy; a relatively liberal international commercial order to offer markets for American agricultural surplus; and a reduction in government spending and the national debt. Through such steps, Jefferson sought to evade the social corruption of an increasingly commercialized society and preserve the republican vision of American society. Jefferson’s political economy was enacted through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. By purchasing the Louisiana territory from France, Jefferson hoped that the addition of new lands would preserve the agriculture-based U.S. economy and add to his notion of a continuously expanding “empire of liberty” across the western hemisphere.
McCoy main thesis in “The Elusive Republic” is that the political economy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ultimately failed and was not realized in the long term. Overall, the basis of his argument is strong and is based on several key factors. The first two factors were the outbreak of the wars resulting from the French Revolution in 1792 and the signing of the Jay Treaty in 1794. Despite the widespread belief that European demand for American exports would decline as a result of the wars, it instead increased dramatically after 1792. McCoy argues that the wars resulting from the French Revolution marked a major turning point in the American economy because it made it profitable for Americans to export goods and materials to Europe. Additionally, the Jay Treaty helped to open the door to increased international trade and cemented America’s economic ties with Great Britain.
Furthermore, McCoy argues that the Louisiana Purchase augmented the spread of slavery and in turn, undermined the political economy of Jefferson and Madison. Despite the fact that the Louisiana Purchase removed several obstacles to the realization to Jefferson’s republican vision, it also exposed some of the contradictions within his vision. For example, the supporters of Jefferson frequently boasted of the isolation and independence of the U.S., but in reality American republicanism depended on both an open international commercial order and the absence of any competing presence in North America. The U.S., McCoy argues, could isolate itself from foreign influences only if it were to resign itself from international trade and westward expansion (204). In addition, the Louisiana Purchase fueled the spread of slavery as the U.S. expanded westward. The Jeffersonian political economy had hoped by the controlled exploitation of land would reduce the need for slavery and that it would eventually die out. In reality, the demand for slave labor increased dramatically as the agricultural industry expanded westward (252).
In conclusion, Drew McCoy explores the competing economic visions in early America in The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America. The major figures in the debate over political economy in America were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Ultimately, the political economy of Jefferson and Madison did not come to define the U.S. in the long-term, and several diverse factors prevented it from becoming permanent. Furthermore, McCoy discusses the implications of the shift towards a highly commercialized economy and the changing moral beliefs regarding luxury goods throughout the 18th and early 19th Centuries.
One of the most influential pieces of legislation in recent memory is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as “Obamacare.” Ever since President Obama signed the PPACA into law in 2010, there has been much debate over the planning and execution of the law as well as controversy about its effectiveness. Proponents of the PPACA argue that it will gradually lower health care costs, expand preventative health care measures, make health care coverage more universal and improve the economy in the long term. On the other hand, opponents of the PPACA contend that the law will instead increase healthcare costs, negatively affect economic growth, eliminate patient choice and also be proven unconstitutional. In addition, some opponents feel the law is not comprehensive enough and will do little to create any lasting reform in a broken healthcare system. Support for the Act is also divided on the political spectrum, with Democrats generally backing the Act and Republicans nearly universal in their skepticism towards it. This controversy between the two sides has provoked both support and backlash, but the effectiveness of the Act is still being measured.
Before the PPACA was enacted, the U.S. healthcare system had numerous flaws. Insurance providers were almost universally privatized. Healthcare premiums were rising exponentially. There existed frequent discrimination and restrictions on people with preexisting conditions, as well as a lack of oversight and regulation in the healthcare industry overall. In response to those issues, President Obama campaigned on a platform of reform of the healthcare system. In a speech before Congress in February 2009, Obama cited the issue of the “crushing costs of healthcare” and the effects of this problem on individual Americans, including bankruptcy and the loss of property. Additionally, Obama stated the issue of rising healthcare costs result in small businesses closing, increased outsourcing of jobs and the stagnation of wages. The Act was initially proposed with a “public option” that would address these issues. Numerous reactions immediately took place with protesters denouncing the Act as “socialized medicine” and supporters likewise embracing its potential. After much debate, the bill was finally passed on December 24, 2009, and signed into law on March 23, 2010.
The PPACA is relatively large in scope and contains several different provisions.
The scope and size of the Act are wide-reaching and it has several major provisions. One major requirement of the PPACA is the implementation of health insurance exchanges that are meant to allow people without health insurance provided by their employers to purchase plans from a wide array of providers. This also allows for employers with 100 or fewer workers to purchase plans. These health insurance exchanges are either run by the individual states, the federal government, or by state-federal partnerships. In addition, the federal government provides subsidies and tax credits in order to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for lower and middle-income individuals. The rationale behind the establishment of these health insurance exchanges is to reduce the overall cost of health insurance and increase the number of individuals with coverage.
Another key provision in the PPACA is the banning of discrimination by insurance companies on patients with pre-existing medical conditions. At first, the provisions only covered children with pre-existing conditions, but the requirements came into effect for adults in 2014. Prior to the passage of the Act, insurance providers routinely discriminated against individuals with pre-existing conditions and either denied them insurance coverage or charged them higher premiums. In addition, all existing or new insurance plans have to cover dependent children of policyholders until the age of 26.
The loosening of medicaid eligibility requirements is a another key aspect of the PPACA.
Another provision of the PPACA is the loosening of Medicaid eligibility requirements and the reduction and ultimate closing of the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap. Under the current policy, Medicare patients have to pay out of pocket for a portion of the cost of their prescription drugs. The eligibility provisions for the Medicaid program were revised to cover anyone who earns less than 133% of the poverty line. The Act also stipulates that the federal government would pay 100% of the cost of the new enrollees until 2016 and then gradually shift more of the cost onto the states. In addition, the Act reduces the coverage gap in the Medicare part D prescription drug plan (known as the “donut hole”) gradually by 2020.
A major aspect of the PPACA is the individual mandate component of the law. The individual mandate requires all U.S. citizens to purchase basic health care coverage or face fines and additional penalties. The main penalty, if one does not purchase health care insurance, is a tax that can vary from $695 to $2,085 per year, per family. The tax is to be gradually phased in over a 3 year period and is to be increased annually due to the cost-of-living adjustment. In addition, businesses with 50 or more employees will be charged a penalty beginning in 2014 if they do not offer healthcare benefits to their employees.
Federal funding finances the PPACA through several payment systems. The Act mandates that an excise tax will be levied on the most expensive employer-sponsored healthcare plans and the Medicare payroll tax for higher-income workers will be increased. The PPACA has imposed several restrictions as to what is covered as well. Federal funding of all abortions with the exception of rape or incest are prevented through the inclusion of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment. In addition, illegal immigrants are prohibited from purchasing coverage through the health care exchange programs.
President Obama is a major proponent of the PPACA and argues that it will result in lower healthcare costs and increased health care access.
Proponents of the PPACA argue that the law will help to reduce healthcare costs overall. In a November 5, 2014, press conference, President Obama indicated that “health care inflation has gone down each year since the Affordable Care Act was passed” and that “we now have the lowest healthcare costs in 50 years.” Some articles have found this claim to be exaggerated, as in reality, healthcare spending growth rates have slowed down but not actually decreased. A recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services stated that U.S. healthcare spending will be $500 Billion less in 2019 than was originally projected by the Congressional Budget Authority (CBO) in 2010. In addition, the study also stated that the lowering of total healthcare spending would have a positive effect on the U.S. fiscal situation and would prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund for an additional 4 years. The data gathered by both agencies gives credence to the original claim that the Act would be cost-effective and help to slow down the ever-increasing growth in the overall cost of healthcare.
Another argument used by Proponents of the PPACA is that the law will increase the number of people who have basic health insurance and, in turn, make coverage more universal. One of the major provisions of the Act is to increase the access to healthcare insurance and reduce the number of uninsured citizens. According to the Urban Institute’s Health Reform Monitoring Survey, the number of uninsured Americans declined by 2.7 percent from the time the first enrollment period into the healthcare exchange began in September 2013 through March 2014. In addition, the percentage of people who are uninsured is higher in states that had rejected the Medicaid expansion provisions of the Act as opposed to states that accepted the expansion.
The PPACA increases funding for preventative health care measures.
Proponents of the PPACA also argue that the law will increase the number of people with access to preventative healthcare. Prior to the passage of the Act, many insurers did not cover preventative care measures. Due to the fact that insurance companies are now required to cover basic healthcare measures, the number of people taking advantage of preventative healthcare is increasing, especially among people between the ages of 19 and 25. According to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, the number of 19-25-year-olds receiving routine checkups has increased 5 percent since the main provisions of the Act came into effect. In addition, the number of young adults with private dental coverage increased from 37 to 42 percent during the same time period. A possible reason as to why the number of young adults receiving preventative healthcare has increased is due to the provision in the Act that allows them the option to remain on their parent’s insurance plans until they are 26.
Another argument from supporters of the PPACA is the possibility that the law will benefit economic growth over the long run. In a 2012 article, Jonathan Gruber, one of the main figures behind the development of the Act, stated that he believes this legislation will improve economic growth. Gruber held that the Act will result in greater economic security for uninsured families due to the lower cost and increased accessibility of care. Gruber also expressed that the Act could potentially increase consumer spending, as uninsured people who previously set aside money to cover medical expense would now be able to free up that money for consumer spending. Gruber further cites that, when the federal government expanded the Medicaid program during the 1990s, consumer spending increased amongst the newly-insured. In addition, Gruber feels that as demand for medical care grows, job opportunities for doctors, nurses and technicians will rise, thus improving the job market.
In the debate regarding the PPACA, opponents criticize the provisions of the Act, saying it will result in negative consequences. Critics take the position that the Act will increase healthcare costs, negatively affect the economy and say the law itself is unconstitutional. In addition, some critics believe that the Act will not go far enough to increase coverage and will not result in any lasting changes in the healthcare system.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are the two leading opponents of the PPACA
One of the major points that opponents of the PPACA argue that the Act will harm economic growth and competitiveness. Two major opponents of the Act that believe it will harm job growth are House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on November 5, 2014, both Boehner and McConnell spoke of their intentions to repeal the Act which “is hurting the job market along with America’s healthcare.” A survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia stated that roughly 18 percent of U.S. businesses have either stopped hiring or reduced their staff due to concerns about the expenses and provisions of the Act. Business who have 50 or more employees are the most reluctant to expand due to the new regulations and requirements that have been pushed onto them due to the Act.
Opponents of the PPACA say that the law will ultimately reduce quality of care and patient choice. According to report by the National Center for Public Policy, the quality of health insurance declined prior to the Act’s implementation. The study found that the health insurance plans offered by the healthcare exchanges provided a less comprehensive quality of care than comparable plans on the private market. The study also found that the average deductibles for the bronze-tiered plan (the least costly plan) in 2014 were about 42 percent higher than those in plans from the individual market in 2013. In addition, patient choice may be limited under some of the healthcare plans on the exchange. In order to reduce costs and lower premiums, many of the insurance providers have opted to only cover certain doctors under some plans, restricting patient choice.
Opponents of the PPACA also question of the constitutionality of such a law, specifically the individual mandate provisions in the law. Despite that fact that the Supreme Court had ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional in a 5-4 decision in 2012, there are still some arguments against its constitutionality. Opponents argue the Act itself will result in an unchecked expansion of Congressional and executive power beyond the limits of the Constitution and that the individual mandate is a violation of an individual’s right to choose. In addition, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that the individual mandate is “the greatest challenge to states’ rights in U.S. history” and that “it is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers.”
Senator Bernie Sanders feels that the PPACA doesn’t go far enough in providing universal healthcare.
Challengers of the PPACA further argue that the law itself does not go far enough in providing universal healthcare coverage. An example of someone who feels that the Act is not comprehensive enough is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. While arguing that the Act has resulted in some improvements to the healthcare system overall, Sanders stated that the law will do little to foster long-term change to the healthcare system. In addition, Sanders feels that the U.S. healthcare system should be modeled after a single-payer system similar to the ones that are present in Europe. He believes that a single-payer healthcare system would reduce the feelings of insecurity that individuals and small businesses have regarding the availability of health insurance and result in more cost-effectiveness in healthcare In addition, a single-payer healthcare system would have a positive benefit on the economy, as small business owners and entrepreneurs would have more freedom to develop their business plans without the worry and cost of providing healthcare to their employers. Sanders cited the Medicare and Medicaid programs as models of an effective single-payer healthcare system.
Though the PPACA has received a good deal of negative press from opponents who question the constitutionality of the law, the potential for effectiveness, and the general far-reaching implications of the Act, I myself remain cautiously optimistic about the long-term ability of the law to meet the objectives of those who initiated it. As stated, the Act is dependent on many factors such as enrollment and its acceptance by those who are still opposed. Some downsides include the slow rollout of the program, difficulties in accessing the Internet framework of the exchanges, legal challenges presented against the program, and questions about its overall effects on a still-weak economy. Of course, the measurable success of the program will be directly correlated to enrollment of those previously uninsured, good revenue growth within the program, the attraction of qualified physicians and practices who will embrace the program and confidence in the quality of care in the selections available for coverage.
In conclusion, reform of the healthcare system is long overdue and has been proposed often throughout the past century. The last real healthcare reform was the Social Security Act of 1965. The most recent attempt to reform the healthcare system occurred during the Clinton Administration in 1993, but this did not pass. Restructuring is imperative in order to remedy the unbridled spending, bureaucracy, waste and inequities in the current healthcare system. The divide between critics and supporters is indicative of a lack of clarity and transparency in the current healthcare system. In addition, the divide in opinions on the Act is segregated on ideological and political-party lines, with Republicans mostly opposed to it and Democrats in favor. The Act attempts to reform the healthcare system by setting up an exchange network and regulating the accessibility of healthcare for Americans. While opponents are skeptical of the effectiveness of the Act, we do not know for certain how successful the PPACA will be.
One of the most important aspects of the debate over economic policy is the effectiveness of the Minimum Wage and the prospects for its increase. The ongoing debate over the minimum wage is an important facet of the country’s economic future and helps to determine its economic competitiveness. Proponents of the minimum wage increase argue that the benefits of having a higher rate outweigh the costs. Opponents of a higher minimum wage, on the other hand, argue that a higher minimum wage is, in fact, harmful to the economy overall. The objective of this report is to discuss the effects of the minimum wage and to analyze the respective positions of both sides of the argument.
The first federal minimum wage law in the United States came into effect in 1938, through the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the minimum wage at a rate of $0.25 an hour (roughly $4.13 in today’s dollars). In addition, the Fair Labor Standards Act also banned the use of child labor and set the maximum workweek at 44 hours (Grossman). Over the ensuing years, the minimum wage has been gradually increased to different levels. The most recent increase occurred in 2009, when the federal minimum wage rose by about 10%, from $6.55 to $7.25. Over the last several months, there have been various proposals discussed that would boost the federal minimum wage once again. The most prominent proposal came from President Barack Obama. In his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama suggested a $10.10 federal minimum wage, which would amount to a 40% increase from its current level. The proposed increases in the minimum wage ignited a large number of discussions on both sides of the political spectrum, with Democrats favoring the increase and Republicans nearly universal in their skepticism of such a plan. Furthermore, most economists cannot reach a consensus regarding the effectiveness of such a move.
Proponents of an increase in the minimum wage argue that a higher wage would not have a huge effect on businesses and would not lead to an increase in prices of goods. According to recent data compiled by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), there is no direct evidence to claim that an increase in the minimum wage would have an adverse impact on employment. That data contradicts the argument used by opponents of increasing the minimum wage that any increase would have a detrimental effect on employment and economic growth. Furthermore, the same research shows that a hike in the minimum wage would not have a huge impact on the prices of goods and services provided by companies. For example, assuming that the minimum wage is to be increased by 10% over a 2 year period, the prices of goods would only increase by roughly 0.18%. Those increases in prices are negligible when compared to the overall gains in purchasing power for many workers.
Another argument in favor of increasing the minimum wage is that an increase will help to reduce the poverty rate. For example, if the minimum wage was to be increased from $7.25 to $10.10, it is estimated that the number of people who live below the poverty line will reduce by about 4.6 Million. In addition, the average incomes of the bottom 10% of earners are expected to increase by $1,700 per year due to such a raise. The belief that an increase in the minimum wage can reduce poverty is shared by many economists, even those who are skeptical about the results of the minimum wage on businesses. For example, minimum wage opponent David Neumark wrote in 2011 that an increase in the minimum wage by 10% would reduce poverty among 21-44-year-olds by 2.9%.
Proponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that the current minimum wage is too small when compared to the overall cost of living. While the federal minimum wage is $7.25 and is as high as $8.00 in states such as California, the minimum wage is often not enough for people to keep up with the cost of living. A worker who works 40 hours per week at $7.25 an hour can expect to only earn $15,080 per year. In contrast, the federal poverty line for a two-person household is $15,130. According to a study by Amy Glasmeier, the cost of living in various cities ranges from $12-15 per hour in smaller cities and up to $20 per hour in larger cities. Often, people who earn the minimum wage have to rely on working multiple jobs in order to keep up with their financial demands and continue to scrape by on a meager lifestyle.
Another argument from proponents is that raising the minimum wage will help to reduce income inequality. For example, the income rates of the top 1% of earners rose by a whopping 275% between 1979 and 2007 while the bottom 20% only saw an 18% increase during that comparable period. If the minimum wage had kept up with the productivity increases during that time, it would be $21.72 today, according to research by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). Over the last several decades, income inequality and class distinctions have become a major societal issue in the United States and the stagnation of the purchasing power of the minimum wage is partially to blame. According to data provided by the Economic Policy Institute, the federal minimum wage had reached a peak in overall purchasing power in 1968 and since has declined by close to 23% over the past four and a half decades.
Furthermore, it can be argued that a higher minimum wage can also help to reduce gender inequality. When considering who earns the minimum wage, women made up roughly 64% of overall minimum wage earners in 2012. In addition, the minimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 per hour and women comprise approximately 72% of all tipped employees. Furthermore, women are disproportionately paid a lower wage than men. The economic inequality between men and women is a serious economic concern that the U.S. continues to face and could weaken the economic prospects of the country in the years to come. An increase in the minimum wage could have a positive effect on the economic prospects of women and decrease the inequalities regarding gender than many women face on a daily basis in the workplace.
In the debate over increasing the minimum wage, there are numerous economists who take the position that a hike in the minimum wage is, in fact, harmful to the economy and not beneficial to the very workers that it is intended to help. Opponents of increasing the minimum wage often argue that a higher minimum wage will have a drastic impact on the economy. Opponents often argue that a higher minimum wage will have an effect in reducing employment among low-skilled workers, create an undue burden on businesses, harm U.S. economic competitiveness and increase consumer debt.
One common argument among proponents of the minimum wage is that an increase in the minimum wage will help the poor. However, according to the American Enterprise Institute, an increase in the minimum wage will do little to help the poor improve their standard of living and will reduce employment levels among lower skilled workers. Research indicates that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage can reduce employment among low-skilled workers by roughly one to three percent. The proposed 40 percent increase can have an even greater effect on employment. In addition, studies by the AEI show that nearly all minimum wage jobs are held by teenagers from middle-class backgrounds who seek part-time employment. Furthermore, additional analysis by the AEI shows that only 10 percent of minimum wage earners came from households below the poverty line in 2007.
Another argument that can be used against raising the minimum wage is that a higher minimum wage can have a negative impact on economic growth and competitiveness. Those who are skeptical to a hike in the minimum wage feel that the effects of a higher minimum wage are especially felt on those who are seeking employment in entry-level jobs. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office speculated that if the minimum wage were to be increased to $10.10 per hour, a job loss of over half a million could potentially occur. That belief is further corroborated in a study by David Neumark. In his study, Neumark uses a panel approach analyzing data regarding its effects and found that a higher minimum wage, in fact, increases unemployment.
It can also be argued that a higher minimum wage can lead to companies deciding to outsource their jobs to areas with considerably lower labor costs. One of the major economic problems that the U.S. faces are the outsourcing of jobs to countries overseas with lower costs of labor and prevailing wages such as China, Mexico, Brazil, and India. One can draw a direct correlation between a higher minimum wage and the outsourcing of jobs. As businesses seek to expand their profits, a higher minimum wage can ultimately affect their profit margins. In order to make up for their loss in revenue, a business may decide to transfer most of their jobs to an area where the minimum wage is considerably less. The practice of outsourcing is a common practice by many major businesses and is a major factor in the loss of a competitive edge in many economic indices by the U.S.
Opponents of increasing the minimum wage also argue that a higher minimum wage will discourage people from finding work in the U.S. by limiting the negotiation power for higher wages by prospective employees. A major work ethic philosophy in the U.S. is that one should find work at a rate that the free market determines as fair for one’s skill level. Though there are mandates on business by government, such as a minimum wage, people often lack the bargaining power to negotiate a fair rate for their skills and are trapped at the lowest wage level. Due to their lack of negotiation powers, people often decide not to seek employment and in turn, increase their reliance on government assistance programs such as food stamps and various forms of welfare. With the current financial status of the U.S., further demands on its entitlement system can potentially have a devastating effect on its economic future in the years to come.
Proponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that a higher minimum wage will lead to higher economic growth and more consumer demand. While most evidence shows that a hike in the minimum wage can boost consumer spending in the short term, overall a minimum wage increase can lead to consumers taking on more debt on the purchase of durable goods. According to a paper by Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, most adult workers at the very bottom end of the wage scale spend an additional $700 per quarter in response to a $1 wage hike. Most of the additional spending is paid for through forms of credit. When factoring an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10, a worker in the bottom of the economic scale would spend an additional $1,995 per quarter on consumer goods, again mostly paid for by increasing their personal debt.
Through the analysis of both sides of the debate over the minimum wage, it can be concluded that a clear position regarding its results is not reachable. When going over the data gathered by economists over many decades, it seems that the minimum wage affects many groups in entirely different ways. The effects of the minimum wage tend to be negative, as a higher minimum wage can potentially reduce business profits and harm economic competitiveness. On the other hand, a higher minimum wage will provide a myriad of benefits to workers such as the ability to keep up with the ever-rising standard of living and allow for a reduction in economic inequality. With regards to the proposed legislation on increasing minimum wage to $10.10, a compromise position can be reached that can satisfy the demands of both employers and workers. An example of a compromise would be to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 at a more gradual rate. Furthermore, such a plan could also call for granting companies several incentives such as tax credits or a slight reduction in their income taxes if they hire more employees. A proposal such as that would reduce the potential adverse effects of a large minimum wage hike on business and also allow the workers at the bottom of the economic scale to have a chance to improve their standard of living.
In conclusion, the debate over the minimum wage is one of the more controversial economic debates in the U.S. today. Much like with other debates, the dispute over the minimum wage is split along political lines. Those in support of a higher minimum wage explain its merits and illustrate its positive results, while opponents of a higher minimum wage take the contrary position. In addition, proponents of both sides of the minimum wage debate take many different positions and go over numerous arguments to back up their respective beliefs. Furthermore, many economists have not reached a conclusion regarding the ultimate effect of the proposed minimum wage increase. As time goes on, the true effects of the minimum wage increase may become more apparent and a conclusion regarding the future of the wage can be reached.
