PEERS RESPOND

Post an explanation for how you think the cost-benefit analysis in terms of legislators being reelected affected efforts to repeal/replace the ACA. Then, explain how analyses of the voters views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies (e.g., Congress' decisions impacting Medicare or Medicaid). Remember, the number one job of a legislator is to be re-elected. Please check your discussion grading rubric to ensure your responses meet the criteria.

Legislator's Reelection and Cost-Benefit Analysis Affecting Efforts to Repeal the ACA

There is a great need that lies in the process of analyzing efforts and cost-benefits to repeal/replace a certain policy by any legislator when being reelected. This is because an appropriate solution might not be well determined in deciding which of the given policies could result in greater benefits and incur low costs. The above case is similar to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Selker, 2021). This act was also referred to as Obamacare since the act was projected and also instigated during President Obama's governance (HealthCare.gov, 2018). The ACA has three primary goals mainly: One, making health insurance affordable to every person. Secondly, the act aims to support delivery methods and innovative care and thus lowering healthcare costs. Lastly, expanding Medicaid and offering healthcare coverage to adults with income below the poverty line. Thus, during President Obama's era, legislators in need of reelection were favored by the ACA since it was a hot topic by then. Replacing and repealing ACA meant shuddering things up at the jeopardy of the major party withholding from both houses of Congress.

Furthermore, during the initial period of Trump's administration, Obamacare dominated the newspapers and in every news headline. Thus, the majority party took advantage of the opportunity to respond and act upon the judgment of healthcare as a problem and the policy (ACA) during political times within elections. Concerning ACA, a large number of policymakers never wished to participate in the act of repealing and replacing the act.  This was because the great emphasis is based on the needs of the public as opposed to the act of repealing as it never represented the public interests. The act of repealing and taking away the important sections in the act which included Medicaid's and Medicare's expansion would affect the beneficiaries of the act negatively.  According to Sattler, (2018), one of the major factors that affect effective policymaking is political interference as it upholds selfish interests. If this happens, politicians are moved by what is viewed as popular by the masses hence highlighting the need for reelection.

The act (ACA) was proposed, backed, and politically inspired by Democratic representatives. Even though a greater number of citizens supported the act, President Trump required the law to be repealed which would have given rise to reduced benefits concerned with healthcare coverage mostly to the unfortunate and American citizens covered by the act (Sattler, 2018). The representatives' selfish interests inspired by the majority electorates lead to the survival of the ACA. Thus, the process of effecting the change would have been easy if the majority of people called for a repeal.

Analysis of Voters' Views

Reelection being the critical agenda for legislators, limits their policy-making abilities toward their reelection proposals. Thus, the analysis of the electorate's views is a protruding strategy that is employed by the representatives which interferes with their aptitudes to legislate. Hence, their legislation is done outside the voters' needs and interests. The emphasis is mainly on the likelihood and opportunity of bis whereas the electorates' needs should be first taken into account (Selker, 2021). However, politicians make assumptions that whatever thoughts they have are the most popular regardless of the opinions present. Moreover, democracy is mostly affected in such a case where the majority wins and unfit decisions are used for addressing present challenges. However, politicians who are well connected with the public both psychologically and emotionally are most likely elected as they connect with their voters' needs and interests. Hence, they move forward to advocate for the electorates' agenda because they want to be reelected and not out of goodwill. A populist strategy is likely to result in negative outcomes due to the absence of a genuine approach where congresspersons take leadership spots and inspire an unbiased agenda prioritizing public desires even when such factors may lead to dismissal (Sattler, 2018).

ONE RESPOND

Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days by expanding on their explanation and providing an example that supports their explanation or respectfully challenging their explanation and providing an example.

WITH REFRRENCES