Ideological polarization over the affordable care act : from an ethical perspective

Abstract EN

Among the most contested issues in the American welfare state is the reform of the long-lasting health care system.

Liberals and conservatives formed the two conflicting parties over the repair of this system undertaken by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), nicknamed "Obamacare, " in early 2010.

Hence, a strong partisan ideology dominated the health care arena in the US.

The scope of the heated debates helped put Obamacare implementation at crossroads.

In an attempt to spot the ethical light on this ideological polarization, this paper employs a principle-based ethical theory introduced by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress known as Principlism.

The objective is to assess the ethicality of these practices using self-autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice as relevant ethical principles included in Principlism.

As a consequence, the respect for these principles reflects the ethicality of the action, whereas the disrespect entails the action's incompatibility with these ethical rules.

This research follows two approaches: first, it attempts to prove that the positions from the implementation of Obamacare reflect the principled policy choices of both right- and left-wing parties and their commitment to their different moral worldviews.

Second, in light of the four principles designed by Principlism, it revisits the political obstacles of Obamacare application to trace the juxtaposing attitudes and to assess the deep-rooted ethical implications that either push for or seek to prevent full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

This investigation concludes with the idea that liberals prove to be more considering of ethical issues concerned with public health than conservatives do.