Political Consequences of ACA Repeal Paper
Political Consequences of ACA Repeal Paper
Regardless of political affiliation, individuals often grow concerned when considering perceived competing interests of government and their impact on topics of interest to them. The realm of healthcare is no different. Some people feel that local, state, and federal policies and legislation can be either helped or hindered by interests other than the benefit to society.
ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED SOLUTION PAPERS
Consider for example that the number one job of a legislator is to be reelected. Cost can be measured in votes as well as dollars. Thus, it is important to consider the legislator’s perspective on either promoting or not promoting a certain initiative in the political landscape.
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and reflect on efforts to repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
- Consider who benefits the most when policy is developed and in the context of policy implementation.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 3
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.
–> APA format, please refer to Rubric
–> Please three current resource and use some resource provided.
http://www.senate.gov/senators/leadership.htm
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the
discussion question(s)
expectations with
re!ective critical analysis
and synthesis of
knowledge gained from
the course readings for
the module and current
credible sources.
Supported by at least
three current, credible
sources.
Written clearly and
concisely with no
grammatical or spelling
errors and fully adheres to
current APA manual
writing rules and style.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the
discussion question(s) and
is re!ective with critical
analysis and synthesis of
knowledge gained from
the course readings for
the module.
At least 75% of post has
exceptional depth and
breadth.
Supported by at least
three credible sources.
Written clearly and
concisely with one or no
grammatical or spelling
errors and fully adheres to
current APA manual
writing rules and style.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the
discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not
addressed or are
super”cially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking
re!ection and critical
analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents
knowledge gained from
the course readings for
the module.
Post is cited with two
credible sources.
Written somewhat
concisely; may contain
more than two spelling or
grammatical errors.
Contains some APA
formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the
discussion question(s)
adequately.
Lacks depth or
super”cially addresses
criteria.
Lacks re!ection and
critical analysis and
synthesis.
Does not represent
knowledge gained from
the course readings for
the module.
Contains only one or no
credible sources.
Not written clearly or
concisely.
Contains more than two
spelling or grammatical
errors.
Does not adhere to
current APA manual
writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits
synthesis, critical thinking,
and application to practice
settings.
Communication is
professional and
respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty
questions are fully
answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise
opinions and ideas that
are supported by at least
two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis
and understanding of
learning objectives.
Response is e#ectively
written in standard, edited
English.
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical
thinking and application to
practice settings.
Communication is
professional and
respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty
questions are answered, if
posed.
Provides clear, concise
opinions and ideas that
are supported by two or
more credible sources.
Response is e#ectively
written in standard, edited
English.
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and
may have some depth.
Responses posted in the
discussion may lack
e#ective professional
communication.
Responses to faculty
questions are somewhat
answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear,
concise opinions and
ideas, and a few or no
credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on
topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the
discussion lack e#ective
professional
communication.
Responses to faculty
questions are missing.
No credible sources are
cited.
Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits
synthesis, critical thinking,
and application to practice
settings.
Communication is
professional and
respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty
questions are fully
answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise
opinions and ideas that
are supported by at least
two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis
and understanding of
learning objectives.
Response is e#ectively
written in standard, edited
English.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical
thinking and application to
practice settings.
Communication is
professional and
respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty
questions are answered, if
posed.
Provides clear, concise
opinions and ideas that
are supported by two or
more credible sources.
Response is e#ectively
written in standard, edited
English.
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and
may have some depth.
Responses posted in the
discussion may lack
e#ective professional
communication.
Responses to faculty
questions are somewhat
answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear,
concise opinions and
ideas, and a few or no
credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on
topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the
discussion lack e#ective
professional
communication.
Responses to faculty
questions are missing.
No credible sources are
cited.
Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for
participation by posting
on three di#erent days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet
requirements for
participation by posting
on 3 di#erent days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric EXIT
Grid View List View
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric
EXI