U.S. Health Care Reform and the Elderly: Challenges and Resolutions - Research Paper Example

U.S. Health Care Reform and the Elderly: Challenges and Resolutions Abstract The health care reform in the United States is a kind of struggle that does not require bloodshed. A revolution of some sort is necessary: revolution of thought. This revolution is naturally confronted with numerous barriers, mostly political. Signing into law, a means to attain reform is in itself a political battle. In practice, the universal health care is not socially acceptable. The old order momentarily prevails, and the new order is fighting to gain grounds. Apparently, reforming the U.S. health care industry has varied perspectives. Generally, there are two facets involved in reforming the health care bill: (1) the text; and (2) its context. Problems may be unavoidable and so are solutions. This essay explores the pros and cons of the U.S. health care reform and how it affects the elderly people. Also, this paper examines the challenges encountered and the necessary resolutions in reforming the health care system. Keywords: universal health care, health care as a right, market-based system Overview The centrality of the issue involved in the health care debate is the notion of health care as a human right. The “language of rights” is very useful in scrutinizing the prevalence of inequality and inadequacy in a particular social setting (O’Keeffe, 1994). Consequently, people tend to argue on what essentially constitutes a universal health care (Taylor, 1999). Intuitively, health care as a right is perfectly reasonable (Williams, 2008). And the most revolutionary description to the idea of health care as a right is the process and act of ensuring that all citizens fully and equitably receive quality and comprehensive care (Jenkins & Ardalan, 2008). Noticeably, the “language of rights” creates leverage between inequality and equality especially for the frail elderly people. Gradually, the essential components and its praxis become the central aspect of discourse once the concept of health care as a right is established. In America today, however, health care as a right is not widely accepted (Macauley, 2005). The adherence and pursuance of the universal health care program is confronted with much opposition. Paradoxically, health care as a right is also challenged with the “rights” of others: physician’s and company’s rights. Historically, health care reform in the United States has been a transfer or “evolution” from the physician-dominated professional model to the market-based health care system (Agrawal & Veit, 2002; Kaveny & Keenan, 1995). Health care deliveries were originally the function of the professionals. Almost all of the physicians and other health care workers are self-employed. As a consequence, medical practitioners were merely a “non-system of independent small business” whose delivery and practice of medical services and goods lack continuity and quality (Agrawal & Veit, 2002). On the other hand, the proponents of the market-based health care system attempted to deviate from the line of the physicians’ non-system approach towards the system-based approach. In the modern era, however, the health care system is undergoing another paradigm shift: towards manage-based health care. Pros There are six positive effects in universalizing the health care system, especially for the U.S. elderly people (Schwab, n.d.). First, all elderly people regardless of economic status will receive the benefits and services provided by the health care law. Poor and rich alike can avail and access easily. As a result, a significant number of uninsured elderly Americans will be secured via the universal health care (Macauley, 2005). Second, the physicians’ workload will significantly decrease. Moreover, medical practitioners will no longer need office staffs in drafting and submitting complicated billing statements related to the practice of medicine (Schwab, n.d.). This would translate to the physicians’ gain in terms of time, effort, and money. Third, physicians will be rewarded in providing the patient a type of preventative care (Schwab, n.d.). The benefits of the physician are truly enormous. He or she not only saves the elderly patients’ lives, the physician can also receive additional monetary value for his or her part of doing a kind of preventative care. Fourth, the cost of providing medical care to elderly people will significantly be reduced. Motives aimed for profit will be nonexistent (Schwab, n.d.). The paradigm of maximizing profit will be obsolete since the government already runs the health care industry. Fifth, elderly people will no longer be denied merely for his or her pre-existing medical condition (Schwab, n.d.). Patients are treated well regardless of his or her medical history and health condition under the universal health care system. Insurance too will cover his or her medical needs. Elderly patients don’t have to worry whether or not he or she will be covered according to their insurance contract. And sixth, insurance premiums are eradicated. The cost paid for the access of the health care services lessens as taxes increase (Schwab, n.d.). Cons There are cons in the health care system as there are pros. First, government has a bad reputation in controlling, managing, or running the social services: including health care (Greenbaum, n.d.). In the age of cynicism, people cannot trust the government anymore. Politicians are vulnerable to greed and corruption unless there is a complete transparency. Second, government will be required to spend more in providing a state-funded or federal-funded health care delivery. There is a reasonable fear that this type of reform “may prove more costly” (Achenbaum, 1994). This will burden the U.S. economy as it serves its citizens a costly health care program. For the record, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that allocates a paramount amount of federal budget for the health sector (Hunter, 2008; Jones, 1992). Ironically, a number of its citizens cannot avail or access the social services sponsored by their government. Third, medicine will no longer be produced qualitatively (Greenbaum, n.d.). The existence of corporations will no longer be necessary when the health care industry is already state-controlled. As a result, competition becomes an empty concept. In the economic jargon, competition is what usually drives the private companies to invent, manufacture, and distribute medicinal tablets, capsules, and the like (Jones, 1992). Private enterprises will then be closed down with the advent of the socialist-type of government system. The “bourgeoisie” will die down as the “proletariat” rises. Fourth, the proposal of the health care reform is somewhat a revolution of a sort. And revolution is an anathema to the capitalist-type of social system. The government does not operate in that way rather than in a slow and incremental change (Keigher, 1995). And fifth, the present health care bill violates the rights of the individual. Such bill obliges everyone to purchase the health insurance; otherwise, they will be subject to an imposed fine. The U.S. Congress has no power or jurisdiction in imposing fines to the elderly people who do not wish to purchase the health insurance. Challenges The health care system faces three major problems: politics, economy, and culture. First, the U.S. government is “uniquely pluralistic, [and] fragmented” (Boase, 1996). The Republican and Democratic Parties are the two popular political parties that struggle to control power within the Federal government. Each of these political parties has its own political platform or ideological framework different from the other. For instance, there is a sharp contrast between these two popular parties centering on universalizing the health care program. The Republican Party generally opposes the notion of a universal health care. This political party highlights the importance of war in securing the U.S. global interests and national security. Moreover, it does not believe that universal health care is a necessity. It rather believes, as it appears, that the individual citizen has the personal responsibility to him or herself in availing the health care services. On the other hand, the Democratic Party favors the idea of health care as a right. It strongly supports for the universal health care system. As oppose to the Republican stance, the Democratic Party affirms the fundamental requisite to help its poor citizens in catering and serving their basic medical needs. Second, the problem concerning the passage of the universal health care law is economic in nature. The government control of the health care industry implies that additional or increase in taxes is unavoidable. The burden of the poor for the health care access is unloaded and passed to the government’s shoulder (Dutton, 2009). The underlying principle of the universal health care is primarily grounded on the theory that the society has the duty to the individual. It is usually a “joint responsibility” of the three sectors of the economy: the family, the business enterprise, and the government (as cited in Champlin & Knoedler, 2008). The individual patient no longer has to pay an expensive health care treatment because the government institution takes up that social responsibility. Allocating a bigger Federal budget for the health care sector is then a necessary step for the project to push through. Financial budget must flow from place to place to meet the demands that arise from prioritizing the health care system. Basically, the Federal government has two options: (1) to increase taxes; or (2) to re-channel budget allocation. Increasing taxes is meeting with opposition from the general public. Tax increase signifies the need for the public to give a certain amount of money as a financial aid to the realization of the government's program and policy. Essentially, the people’s money is directly taken away from them for whatever purposes the government has. Intentions or aims are not pragmatically important to the public but rather the explicit effects or impact of such tax increase to their day-to-day lives. Paradoxically, the government’s vision of helping the poor via universal health care largely contradicts in helping its citizens via tax increase. And to streamline the Federal budget has special implications to the nation as a whole (Boase, 1996). For example, the billion-dollar purchase of a fighter plane ought to be re-channeled in order to increase the budget allocation for the health care sector. The importance of other sectors is neglected as emphasis is given to the health care industry. And third, culture plays an essential element in universalizing the health care system. Universal health care system is almost synonymous to the system of socialism. The mere idea of health care industry as controlled by the State is a fundamental tenet to a socialist principle. The private companies or the bourgeoisie no longer have the monopoly to the health care industry. The U.S. politics does not fit to this kind of health care business and therefore “nonessential” (Keigher, 1994). Culturally and historically, the United States is viewed as an endorser of capitalism or globalization. Resolutions There are three major factors to be dealt with in resolving the issues inherent in the universal health care system. First is the necessity of compromise agreement between the two popular political parties. Universal health care is nearly impossible to occur in America. The nature of their political system makes it complicated to pass a bill from any contending party. The health care issue, particularly concerning the elders’ welfare, is a hard battle to won. The Democratic Party has to undergo a win-win solution with the Republican Party. Certain measures must be revised or amended so that each desires or political platforms are fairly meet. U.S. President Barack Obama admits that the issue on universal health care system is tainted with political bickering. The current President belongs to the Democratic Party that envisions for universalizing the health care. However, compromise agreement between these two political parties is far from possible. The Republican Party does not easily give in to the demands or desires of its rival party. A universal-type of health care does not seem fit to the ideals dearly hold by the Republicans. The Democrats has to resort to other ways in order to attain the vision of a universal health care. One of these ways is for the Democrats to challenge the ideas and ideals of the Republicans. In the end, the battle is all about words: principles. Democrats would ask a fundamental question on why the Republicans dislike a universal health care. To say that the Republican Party is, through and though, an anti-universal health care is an oversimplification to a complicated discourse. To question the underlying principle of a political party is to question the party’s stance on a specific issue. And in so doing, the Democrats have greater chance to persuade the other party in coming to terms with the health care debate. Second is the good management of the Federal budget in the allocation to the different sectors of the U.S. economic life (Boase, 1996). Economics, as the word implies, is the process of economizing the available financial budget. Basically, it is focusing on the “chronic disease management” and pursuing quality measures (Dutton, 2009). The Federal budget, as a scare material resource, has to be economized in order for the government to function well. The U.S. government does not need to increase taxes that would make the lives of the elderly civilians difficult. Streamlining the least important budget allocation towards the most important one is a process or way that is favorable to the general public (Dutton, 2009). The health care industry is evidently relevant to the citizen’s daily living, and therefore should be given emphasis in the Federal-level of allocation. The national security is also important; nonetheless, to spend billions of dollars for an unnecessary military project is impractical. And third is the revolution of thought in embracing the universal health care system. It has been a conventional wisdom that the U.S. was founded on the basis of a capitalist market system. The early 20th Century saw the rise of the United States as a monopoly-capitalist nation. As a consequence of power, this nation-state controlled and monopolized the global economy. Furthermore, the Cold War era proves that U.S. did not back down for being an imperialist country. A socialist system appears to be incompatible to the fundamental framework comprising the United States. Consequently, the universal health care program seems to be incompatible to the basic principle of America (Keigher, 1994). Health-related programs are a symbol of the “great divide” (Boase, 1996). On the other hand, the United States is known as a nation that promotes and fights for freedom and justice. Historically, it has fought slavery and established a society based on the revolutionary idea that “All men are created equal.” Moreover, it has revolutionized its economic life by transforming the agricultural society into a highly-industrialized country. These two historical revolutions show that America is a land of revolutionary ideals and culture. The transformation or paradigm shift from capitalism towards “socialism” is a positive prospect for the U.S. citizens to openly embrace such revolution of thought. Conclusion Universal health care is intuitively good for the society in general and the elders in particular; health care is a right. The poor elders, for instance, do not have to worry on whether or not they are covered in their insurance policy. Also, the elders need not problem about how to pay the medical bills. Furthermore, the elders do not have to be troubled on whether or not they will be admitted in the hospital for reason of pre-existing medical condition. However, the universal health care has few drawbacks. One is the predicted Federal budget deficit as a result of subsidizing the health care for the elders. Paradoxically, the current health care violates the individual person’s right to refuse. But at the heart of the problem is the struggle of power between the two contending political parties. Undoubtedly, the elders need a health care system that ensures them to fully and equitably receive quality and comprehensive care. The two rival parties then ought to find similar ground in promoting and catering health care delivery for the benefit of the elderly people. References Achenbaum, W. A. (1994). Why U.S. health care reform is so difficult. The Hastings Center Report, 24 (5), 23+. Agrawal, G. B., & Veit, H. R. (2002). Back to the future: The managed care revolution. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65 (4), 11+. Boase, J. P. (1996). Health care reform or health care rationing? A comparative study (Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.) Canadian-American Public Policy, (26), 1-48. Champlin, D. P., & Knoedler, J. T. (2008). Universal health care and the economics of responsibility. Journal of Economic Issues, 42 (4), 913+. Dutton, L. R. (2009). One State’s perspective on health care reform. The Journal of Government Financial Management, 58 (4), 22+. Greenbaum, K. (n.d.). Single payer health system: Pros and cons. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1571241-single-payer-health-system-pros-and-cons Hunter, D. L. (2008). Duncan Hunter health care reform. American Journal of Health Education, 39 (1), 8+. Jenkins, A., & Ardalan, S. (2008). Positive health: The human right to health care under the New York Constitution. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 35 (3), 479+. Jones, M. G. (1992). Consumer access to health care: Basic right 21st century challenge. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26 (2), 221+. Kaveny, M. C., & Keenan, J. F. (1995). Ethical issues in health-care restructuring. Theological Studies, 56 (1), 136+. Keigher, S. M. (1994). Health care reform and long-term care: Uneasy political partners. Health and Social Work, 19 (3), 223+. Keigher, S. M. (1995). Managed care’s silent seduction of America and the new politics of choice. Health and Social Work, 20 (2), 146+. Macauley, R. (2005). The Hippocratic underground: Civil disobedience and health care reform. The Hastings Center Report, 35 (1), 38+. O’Keeffe, J. (1994). The right to health care and health care reform. In A. R. Chapman (Ed.), Health care reform: A human rights approach (35-60). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Schwab, L. (n.d.). Single payer health system: Pros and cons. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1565315-pros-and-cons-of-single-payer-health-care Taylor, D. H. (1999). ERISA preemption: Will the elimination of the ERISA preemption clause help or harm America’s ability to death with its pending health care crisis? Journal of Law and Health, 14 (1), 133. Williams, V. J. (2008). The Healthy Washington initiative: Blue-ribbon process, red-herring result. Fordham Urbal Law, 35 (3), 601+. Read More