Partisanship vis-à-vis public health ethics: economic and religious controversies of the affordable care act as a case study

Abstract EN

From its inception, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare, ” encountered a number of obstacles in its implementation.

The difficulties included the severe economically framed debate and the religious controversy.

While the left-wing advocates sought a universal health care model, conservatives argued that the policy of delivering assistance must be selective, accurate, and limited in order to be efficient.

The current research offers valuable ideological insights into a long-lasting American health system beset by partisanship.

This conceptual qualitative paper employs case study as a research tool to trace the ethical considerations behind the liberal-conservative debates over the ACA's socio-economic measures.

It attempts to evaluate the American political division by considering both the ideological and ethical perspectives of the matter.

Through applying the Lakoffian “Metaphor Theory” and major principles of public health ethics included in “Principlism, ” the study concludes that the ACA's implementation demonstrates conformity with two relevant theories concerned with political partisanship and public health ethics, respectively.