Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons of the Affordable Care Act?
This paper examines whether the benefits of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) outweigh its drawbacks. Drawing on scholarship in health economics, public health policy, and health care delivery, the paper argues that the ACA's ostensible advantages—expanded Medicaid access, elimination of coverage limits, and incentives for preventive care—are undermined by deeper structural problems in the U.S. health care system. Chief among these are the profit-driven nature of the industry, rising insurance premiums and deductibles, the marginalization of smaller providers through Medicare reimbursement cuts, and accelerating market consolidation. The paper ultimately concludes that the ACA's cons outweigh its pros because the legislation fails to address—and in some respects reinforces—the fundamental economic incentives that keep health care unaffordable and patient-care quality declining.
- Introduction: Historical context and thesis against ACA
- Background: The ACA's Intended Goals: ACA's legislative goals and early praise
- Why the Pros Don't Outweigh the Cons: Profit incentives undermine ACA's preventive care goals
- Profit-Driven Care and the Insurance Mandate: Insurance mandate failures and opioid crisis links
- Market Consolidation and the Erosion of Competition: ACA accelerates hospital mergers and monopoly power
- Conclusion: Cons structurally outweigh ACA's intended benefits
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with a historical arc—tracing insurance coverage rates from the 1940s to the ACA era—that grounds the argument in concrete context before advancing the thesis.
- It relies on a range of source types: peer-reviewed journals, long-form journalism, and policy reports, giving the argument breadth across economic, clinical, and political dimensions.
- The paper consistently applies a cost-benefit logic, framing each "pro" of the ACA and then systematically showing how structural factors convert it into a net negative.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of the "concede and refute" technique. It acknowledges the ACA's stated goals and the praise it received from scholars like Rosenbaum (2011) before marshaling counterevidence from economists and policy analysts to show that those goals were undermined by market dynamics. This moves the argument beyond simple opposition into a nuanced critique.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a historical introduction and thesis statement, followed by a background section on the ACA's legislative intent. The central argument unfolds across two analytical sections—one addressing the incentive structure of profit-driven care and the insurance mandate, and one addressing hospital consolidation and market power—before a conclusion that synthesizes the cons and reasserts the thesis. This structure mirrors a classic persuasive essay: context, context rebuttal, evidence, and synthesis.
Introduction
Before the 1970s, the majority of people held hospital insurance. In the 1940s, for example, only a tenth of the population had private health insurance. Just forty years later, that trend had reversed: a little more than 10% were uninsured, and everyone else had purchased coverage (Morrisey, 2013). This shift resulted from government subsidization of care, which raised the price of care and prompted more people to seek coverage. Employers offered coverage as an incentive to attract workers, but with the increase in premiums and deductibles, more people began viewing even insurance as too expensive and started avoiding health care altogether.
What the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did was expand taxpayer-funded care through Medicaid and Medicare while obliging individuals to purchase insurance at rates that continue to increase by large percentages year over year (Trish & Herring, 2015). The result was that health care became more accessible for more people—but it was anything but affordable for those who could technically "afford" to pay for it. Moreover, the manner of health care delivery remained questionable, as Goldhill (2009) has shown: instead of practicing preventive care, providers are incentivized to merely "treat" patients, conduct unnecessary tests, and overprescribe. The latter has contributed directly to the current opioid crisis (Rothstein, 2017). Thus, the Affordable Care Act has not done much to bring positive change to an already dysfunctional health care system; on the contrary, it has compounded existing problems by leading insurers to raise their premiums and deductibles to unprecedented levels. This paper argues that the pros do not outweigh the cons of the ACA.
Background: The ACA's Intended Goals
The Affordable Care Act was set in motion by President Obama to address several variables that hindered the treatment and prevention of illness due to lack of access to care (Jacobson-Vann, 2011). The ACA was meant to eliminate "lifetime and annual limits on insurance coverage" while obliging providers to engage in "preventive services," grant "access to health insurance for individuals with preexisting medical issues," and ensure that states had the "flexibility to establish health care programs for low income non-Medicaid eligible clients" (Jacobson-Vann, 2011, p. 100). These were the intended pros. While Rosenbaum (2011) lauded the ACA as a "watershed in U.S. public health policy," the reality was that health care had already become a profit-driven industry and the ACA did nothing to address this fundamental issue (Matthews & McGinty, 2010). This was the main con—and it was, and remains, a significant one, precisely because the profit-driven nature of the industry undermines any benefits the legislation was designed to create.
References
Cutler, D., Morton, F. (2013). Hospitals, market share, and consolidation. JAMA, 310(18), 1964–1970.
Goldhill, D. (2009). How American health care killed my father. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/307617/
Jacobson-Vann, J. C. (2011). Slipping through the cracks of the breast and cervical cancer prevention and treatment act of 2000—a tragic case of failed access to care. Journal of Nursing Law, 14(3), 96–106.
Matthews, A. W., & McGinty, T. (2010). Physician panel prescribes the fees paid by Medicare. The Wall Street Journal.
Morrisey, M. (2013). Health insurance (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
Pope, C. (2014). How the Affordable Care Act fuels health care market consolidation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/how-the-affordable-care-act-fuels-health-care-market-consolidation
Rosenbaum, S. (2011). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Reports, 126(1), 130–135.
Rothstein, M. A. (2017). The opioid crisis and the need for compassion in pain management. American Journal of Public Health, 1253–1254.
Semuels, A. (2017). Are pharmaceutical companies to blame for the opioid epidemic? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/lawsuit-pharmaceutical-companies-opioids/529020/
Trish, E. E., & Herring, B. J. (2015). How do health insurer market concentration and bargaining power with hospitals affect health insurance premiums? Journal of Health Economics, 42, 104–114.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.