1a. Share your opinion: Did the policy leaders use the utilitarian premise of "The end justifies the means" to get the policy known as Obamacare passed?

Obamacare was viewed by voters on the premise that the program would be utilized to engineer a better Medicare program that would guarantee improved care for persons living at the poverty level. I was raised in South Central Los Angeles as a foster child, and have had an extremely intimate relationship with poverty, thus, I can relate to those citizens who were somewhat excited about this program without fully embracing the entire political agenda behind the program. Unfortunately, there were millions in this situation who managed to get the best possible care found within the United States chiefly because of their financial situations, this bill seemed to provide a solution. Emanuel (2015) described it as the best conceivable bill directly addressing humanity. The articles listed in the below references were purposed to highlight the conceptions and misconceptions about Gruber's utterances. In a sense, they serve to examine and analyze the honesty and transparency in the bill and if indeed it was used to dissuade the voters' conscience from the underlying taxes that the government intended to introduce.

Yes, I agree that policy leaders based the creation of the bill entirely on the utilitarian premise that states that the means is justified by the end. That is because their intent was focused on increasing taxations. To realize this ambition, they hoodwinked the public and other policy makers that the bill was focused on establishing quality medical treatment for all citizens. Though this is an indication of a lack of transparency, they ideally managed to get the bill passed (Emanuel, 2015).

b. Was the leadership justified in their actions? Locate at least one other source that agrees with you, and in a couple of sentences provide a summary of the supporting position.

In a sense, the policy makers' actions are not justified due to the fact that had the bill been presented without the misdirecting elements, it would have been rejected by the public (Ross, 2013). That is a proposition that was clarified in the article the Obamacare Voters Stupid Explainer in which it is stated the fact that there would be increased taxations is ideally a factor that was not presented to the public despite the year-long debate that compounded the passing of the bill. In the New York Times' Bernard (2014) article Beware of Shifting Options Within Medicare Plans, it is also indicated that the lack of transparency in handling the bill affected the public's ability to conceive the basic elements in the bill.

c. Locate at least one other source that disagrees with you, and in a couple of sentences provide a summary of the opposition position.

It has been illustrated in the article the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit that the Medicare plans are extremely beneficial to the masses. Removing bits of it would, therefore, hamper its efficacy in ensuring that the public is served with a favorable program that would guarantee improved care for those in need (Ross, 2013). Considering these aspects, it is, therefore, imperative that the bill is left intact or just the level of taxation reduced to make it more fitting for the public's economic interests (Emanuel, 2015).

2. Describe another situation as an example of a case when you think it can be said that "lies, damned lies, and statistics" were used to create (or stop) health care policy?

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) was based on the same precepts because it presented improved Medicare as the bases of the act; yet, it involved increased taxation levies. This is a program that was similarly embraced with enthusiasm by the public who never considered that the Medicare facet had misled them, toyed with their morality, conscious, and ethical beliefs from the taxation aspects defining the act.

3. Suggest a philosophical premise that you think provides a better basis for making public policy.

The best philosophical premise that should guide the creation and establishment of policies is the philosophy of pre-distribution (Emanuel, 2015). Fronted by Jacob Hacker, this philosophy explains that as opposed to using taxations and other state-beneficial systems as main keys in governance and policy-making, it is significant to ensure that equity in policy-making and governance is upheld through the creation of policies that are more transparent and inclined on serving the public's interests (Carney, 2016).

Kingdon's Analysis.

Problem Stream: It is significant to note that the policy leaders based the creation of the bill entirely on the utilitarian premise that states that the means is justified by the end. That is because their intent was focused on increasing taxations. To realize this ambition, they hoodwinked the public and other policy makers that the bill was focused on the provision of quality medical care for all citizens. Though this is an indication of a lack of transparency, they ideally managed to get the bill passed (Emanuel, 2015).

In a sense, the policy makers' actions are not justified due to the fact that had the bill been presented without the misdirecting elements, it would have been rejected by the public (Ross, 2013). That is a proposition that was clarified in the article the Obamacare Voters Stupid Explainer in which it is stated the fact that there would be increased taxations is ideally a factor that was not presented to the public despite the year-long debate that compounded the passing of the bill. In the New York Times' Bernard (2014) article Beware of Shifting Options Within Medicare Plans, it is also indicated that the lack of transparency in handling the bill affected the public's ability to conceive the basic elements in the bill.

Policy Stream:

It is the Federal Government's duty to ensure that the American citizens are well taken care of in the measures of affordable and quality healthcare. Though the ACA positions the government to realize this objective, it is significant to note that other policies would have been used in its place without the need of levying additional taxes on the people. Besides, the bill has not performed its much hyped role of increasing the number of insured persons to guarantee everyone affordable care (Emanuel, 2015).

Political Stream:

Notably, debates about the Obamacare Bill had been and are still banked on the fact that it was a program that is depressive to the economy. Besides, there is the proposition that it did not lower the number of uninsured persons. As such, it only burned the public with weighty taxations that have cost some companies their profitability and performances despite the fact that it has not presented any meaningful benefits (Carney, 2016).

Solution:

The preferred solution would be to drop the bill's clauses that were not initially explained to the public. This would be a move targeted at ensuring that the policy makers uphold transparency in their duties (Carney, 2016). It would also directly serve the interests of the public in limiting the federal taxations to which they are subjected.

References

Bernard, T. (2014). Beware of Shifting Options Within Medicare Plans. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/your-money/beware-of-shifting-options-within-medicare-plans.html?_r=1

Carney, J. K. (2016). Controversies in public health and health policy.

Diamond, J. (2014). Obamacare Voters Stupid Explainer. The CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/

Emanuel, E. J. (2015). Reinventing American health care: How the Affordable Care Act will improve our terribly complex, blatantly unjust, outrageously expensive, grossly inefficient, error prone system.

KFF.Org. (2015). The Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit. http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/the-medicare-prescription-drug-benefit-fact-sheet/

Ross, B. M. C. (2013). Beating Obamacare: Your handbook for surviving the new health care law.