	Boehner and McConnell’s focus of their piece is not the Affordable Care Act, but they do mention it throughout the piece. They argue that the Affordable Care Act is hurting the job market by lowering the number of available jobs and that the act is does more harm to American healthcare than the system before it. 
Finally, they deliver a promise that they will only act upon the interest of Americans going forward.

	Wilensky shows that the individual mandate might not accomplish its intended goal of incentivizing Americans to enroll in an insurance plan because the opt-out fee is insignificant compared to the inconvenience of enrolling in an insurance plan. Thus, many Americans would rather pay the small opt-out fee instead of dealing with complicated insurance business. Butler further elaborates on the problems with an individual mandate. He states that the mandate in the Affordable Care Act should not be in the bill because the purpose of the bill is to insure all Americans (for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of others around them). Butler also argues that individual mandates could be more effective if they actually incentivized people to get insurance (getting insurance will lead to tax breaks) instead of punishing people for not enrolling in an insurance plan (not getting insurance will lead to an opt-out fee). However, the individual mandate does serve a purpose. Everyone will need some form of healthcare at some point in their lives, and the system cannot work if individuals can choose when they want coverage and when they do not want it. The regulation that the individual mandate provides helps to keep the commerce in healthcare more stable than a free market system where citizens can buy coverage as they please. The individual mandate is constitutional, as the penalty is as a tax. Congress has the right to tax citizens. Congress also has the right to regulate commerce, and the individual mandate does regulate healthcare commerce to ensure that health insurance remains cheap and effective. 
	McClellan and Wilensky bring up issues on controlling health care costs and quality of care under the Affordable Care Act. The bill expands coverage, but does not ensure that the expanded coverage is effective and cheaper than coverage that can be currently obtained. Due to this, healthcare costs could actually rise (logically, as there are more people covered and coverage costs remain constant). However, since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, healthcare costs have increased at the same rate as the GDP. This shows that the bill is somewhat effective at controlling the costs of healthcare. Health knowledge is critical in lowering costs even further. Health knowledge will allow consumers to make informed decisions about the health coverage that they would like to receive. This is more beneficial than enrollment in a generic plan that might not fit all of their possible wants or needs. Allowing citizens to choose appropriate health care packages will not limit the goal of universal healthcare. It would actually incentivize more people to enroll in some form of health insurance, as appropriate plans are chosen individually. A malpractice reform would increase the quality of care as physicians would not be under pressure to follow a strict protocol of procedures to prevent lawsuits, and could just work on specific problems that the patient has. This indirectly leads to lower medical costs, as less procedures are done per patient. No suggestions are provided on how to reform malpractice, but both malpractice and controlling costs are issues that are not completely solved by the Affordable Care Act. 
