Healthcare Reform Critique - Essay Example

Health care and health reform Health care reforms The health care reform has been a major point of discussion by several people including the government and citizens through TV shows and news sites. This because the health insurance issues and reforms are critical as it determines the risks that one may have to undergo while seeking medical cover and any other form of treatment (Singh, 2012). The health care reforms entail all the policies that the government has been making to ensure that the health status of its citizens has been improved as explained by (Jill, 2012). This has resulted in the government formulating a health care reform bill, which comes along with several benefits. Some the benefits include allowing children to purchase insurance, at the start of 2014 women will no longer be charged more than men. Insurance firms will also be regulated so that they are not able to hike insurance rates when an individual falls ill will be of benefit to all the citizens. This regulate of the insurance will greatly help in ensuring that the health of any individual is not jeopardize just because of their social status and age The ability of state-based exchanges will also allow persons who are unemployed to purchase insurance. Subsidies will also be provided to those families that are below the federal poverty level. These reforms will be a great boost to most of the citizens who do not earn a decent income (Jill, 2012). Healthcare in the United States is a fundamental part of living. This is due to the many health issues that Americans face in a daily basis. However, the healthcare structure in the America is faced by a big problem of expensive services, which is not affordable to most of the people. A big percentage of American population is not medically insured and this leads to the physician visits being too expensive for an ordinary citizen. Approximately 44million Americans are not insured and an additional 38 million have insufficient health insurances. This population lives each day not sure what would happen if they fell sick or were in need of medical attention. The absence of a medical insurance therefore means that they cannot visit the physician for regular check ups and will always postpone illnesses or trips to the doctor because they simply cannot afford it. Delayed medical care for fear of expenses is a disaster considering the number of people in the country and the illnesses that could be treated early turning fatal. People without health insurance are at the greatest risk of not catching illnesses early enough and not acquiring medical attention when need arises. This leads to an increase in healthcare premiums as a result of unpaid emergency medical bills of uninsured people (Pipes, 2010). In early 2010, president Obama signed the Affordable Care Act as a step to address the pending disaster of healthcare. This law was set in motion with comprehensive healthcare insurance reforms to deal with the healthcare issue of the Americans. According to young invincible, implementing the Act will carter for five major areas namely the extension of the dependent coverage to up to 26years, reforms for college heath plan and exchanges to be more established. It will also offer a catastrophic plan for young adults and expand the Medicaid to the low-income adults who are childless. This plan will go to immense lengths in ensuring that every young person is insured or has access to healthcare through their parents plan. Overt he next few years, there ought to be no barriers when accessing medical care with the implementation of the Affordable care act. It is projected that by the year 2014, changes like a 50% discount on all brand name drugs, tax credits on small business, insurance plans for pre-existing medical conditions as well as an expansion on young adult coverage will be visible. Some of the plans are already underway (Buchbinder & Shanks, 2012). Health systems implemented in other countries around the world have proved to work effectively ensuring that almost every individual in that country is covered medically. According to sick around the world, a country like the United Kingdom has a National Health System (NHS) that is funded through taxes and is run by the government. It ensures that each and every person born in the U.K will have access and use the NHS (pbs.org). In addition, no one is presented with a medical bill through out the duration they are seeking medication. The initiative of the NHS has also reduced the waiting times that were previously required for elective surgeries. In a country like Japan which holds pride for the best health according to global statistics and the second largest economy. These people also visit the doctor thrice as much as Americans, use more drugs, have double the number of MRI scans and reportedly spend more days in hospitals (pbs.org). Apparently, they spend only about half of what the United States spends per capita on healthcare. To achieve this, the Japanese have put it in law that every person must buy a health insurance plan through a community plan or through an employer. By doing this, it prevents insurers from turning down pre-existing conditions and is also not allowed to earn profit (Buchbinder & Shanks, 2012). Reid then tours a country, which came up with the concept of national healthcare systems, Germany. Germany offers universal medical care, which includes mental health, dental, homeopathy, medical, and spa treatment for its 80 million people (pbs.org). They have devised a structure where the poor are paid for by the rich and the healthy cover the ill. This keeps the cost of medical care relatively low and the physicians earn half to two-thirds of what the physicians in America make. The research also looks at countries that previously had health care problems and are now fixing them (Singh, 2012). For instance, Taiwan, every individual holds a smartcard bearing all their medial history but the system has arrears due to the little that they pay for insurance. Currently the government is borrowing to pay what is owed. Similarly, Switzerland had set out to reform a system that previously did not carter for the whole population. It set up a healthcare system that prohibited the insurance companies from making any profits on the basic health care. Looking at the example of Swiss, the reform of healthcare systems is very possible and achievable. At present, the Switzerland has a policy that everyone has a right to healthcare (Schoen & Stremikis, 2010). Healthcare reform is law, which is going to help most Americans live healthily and make productive. All that is requires is getting it started. Many examples have been shown by countries that have had bad history of healthcare and are now practicing good healthcare plan that encompasses the whole country. Other countries have also put to show the success of a healthcare plan and the economical returns that result from it. America has global examples that it can emulate and make improvements as far as the healthcare system is concerned. There are also methods that can be implemented to make sure that each American citizen has full access to medical care no matter he age or occupation. Each person has a right to proper healthcare and a t a price that they can afford. Insurers and pharmaceuticals have to be prohibited from making any kind of profit from healthcare insurances. Patients with pre-existing health conditions need to have a policy that also carters for them as it is proving expensive for them in them to access medical care as well as medication which has become too expensive. It will also persuade people to go to hospital early enough for early detection and treatment of illnesses. They will also not be turned way for not having a cover that will pay for their medical bills. If America can improve and implement its healthcare system, it will no longer complain of the historic healthcare problems that have been a way of life for a prolonged time (npr.org). All Americans will be treated for their medical conditions and begin to display a healthier nation. The introduction of Obama care Act in the U.S health sector was a major boost. Obama care refers to the unofficial name that represents the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act made into Law by President Obama on 23 March 2010. Generally, this name refers to the continuing health care reform under Obamas rule. The government has been working to implement this plan since Obama came into office, the Democratic Party started working on the reform a bit earlier. It is important for the American citizens to understand what Obama care is and what it means to them. The Affordable Care Act is composed of more than two thousand pages of reforms in the health care sector and the insurance industry in order to reduce healthcare costs as well as to offer affordable health insurance to all citizens. According to this act, approximately 44 million Americans are currently unable to access health insurance. The aim of Obama care is to help this people get health insurance by expanding Medicare and Medicaid. From this sense, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the motivational factor behind this document and not the American Constitution (Pipes 2010). The Act established that every citizen has a right to Health Care as a public good, not an asset and thus the U.S health care system must aim at fulfilling the following principles. Universality where each American has the human right to access health care and accountability as the first priority in the responsibilities of the U.S government. Equity, which provides that all the benefits and contributions be distributed fairly to develop a system that favors everyone (Singh, 2012). Promotion of welfare is the most important, and that the society should be organized in such a way that would best obtain individuals well being. It justifies the huge redistribution of wealth to the poor. Futilitarians do not consider historical facts to be important, but their influence on justice verdicts are derived purely from what the future holds for people (Schoen & Stremikis, 2012). Utilitarianism gives equal weight to the interests of each individual, so that burdens may be placed on the one with greater benefits. To shy away from this fact is to give more priority to the lesser important issues at the expense of the greater ones, which is to treat the former citizens interests as more essential as compared to the latters. To them, justice calls for equal concern for everyone, which in turn requires the kind of weighing and balancing between a life’s applied by the prudent person in accepting a current cost for the sake of a greater, future benefit (Pipes, 2010). From a utilitarian view, Obama care is a beneficial policy since it is an improvement of earlier laws and it is aimed at increasing the total utility and happiness in the state. In earlier years, the American government did not provide that insurance companies justify the rise in prices, which was a huge opportunity for private companies to exploit citizens and charge very high premiums for insurance policies. The new law of Obama care will ensure that the government implements its "exchange option," subsidize health insurance for a number of them, and require insurance companies to announce publicly and justify any increases to premiums of over ten percent. This will enable a closer look into the operations of the actions of a company, leading to reasonable prices and a higher quality of health care providers. Apart from decreasing the prices, Obama care will offer more extensive and accessible Medicare and health care to those people who could not afford it in prior times. If health care is made available to many people, then there will be a possibility of regular health care that will bring about happiness and utility (Schoen & Stremikis, 2012). As much as a libertarian would consider that Obamacare restrict the freedom of American citizens and thus is no better than the earlier law, which put forward that the unhappiness of the minority would outweigh the satisfaction of the majority, this would not make sense to a utilitarian. Even though some people would argue that restricting the rights of citizens to choose between accessing and not accessing health care is nothing new in the fresh law, only one provision should be considered, which outweighs the greater implications of the bill; Obama care will make it possible for more Americans would afford and get health care and insurance. It is more reasonable to argue that, by rejecting this bill, peoples right to life would be violated which is even worse than denying them the freedom of choice (Pipes 61). It is quite funny and unfair to consider Obama care as an unnecessary policy, yet one as an American citizen is entitled to pay taxes, of which he may or may not know what the taxes are used for. For instance, taxes such as those meant to cater for military defense, financial bailouts, politicians salaries and other expenses that may not be so relevant are not such a priority but they are in the governments budget. However, i believe that no one can ever wish to assume his or her own health or substitute it with anything on earth; everyone wants to stay healthy. The question to be asked here is why the libertarians should or any other opposed of this bill cry over the Supreme Court ruling that upholds the legality of Obama care when they can consider so many controversial mandates? In fact, these other issues are more appalling as compared to a health care issue. If people really care about their freedom, then there is a need to worry a little more of the unnecessary mandates that they are exposed to. If a mandate is a useless one to the citizens welfare, ten such citizens live under a tyrannical regime. It is a commendable step for the government to implement programs to make sure that every individual can access affordable health care. American citizens are required to abide by such laws and to obey some practices that are meant to promote their well-being. Practices such as driving when sober and at a safe speed, avoiding assaulting others, and wearing seat belts when in a vehicle are aimed at protecting the welfare of a single person as well as of other people around. What is more important is that an individual should consider his or her well being as essential in a given population (Pipes, 2010). Obama care is one policy that will protect the well being and freedom of each individual. Through this, the government created this law to avoid private sectors or specific persons from harming or exploiting innocent citizens. Failing to agree with this governmental program will mean that a person finds it permissible to be manipulated and be assaulted by stranger without any penalty accorded to this. Denying this policy is also denying oneself justice and the right to be protected and be taken care of by the government. If citizens agree, then it is inconsistent to reject Obama care. The objective of having a healthcare mandate is to promote peoples well being. Health is sometimes forgotten when thinking of well being; sometimes it is treated as a luxury, yet it is the physical building block for a persons well being, satisfaction, and happiness. Reasoned arguments against government programs to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care This argument are based on Libertarianism, who understand justice to be completely determined by historical matters or simply, how it came about. To them, America was founded on the concept that citizens should be free from the tyranny of a regime that controls them. Americans should realize the importance of substantive as opposed to simply formal freedom so that they can lead their lives the way they wish. This commits them to ensure access to basic human needs, education, and health care, given that all these are vital prerequisites to any kind of freedom desired. If provision of such needs requires citizens to compromise self-ownership, then there is no need of having them. After all, the latter has is not worth if the former is not available in any case. Obama care provides that all uninsured individuals get a minimal healthcare of be fined through tax. This mandate infringes on citizen liberties, and when the government does this, the ideology that America was based on is undermined. Obama care thus undermines this historical ideology (Pipes, 2010). When a citizen is mandated to abide by a speeding limit, it is reasonable to think that it is a responsibility to protect fellow citizens. However, this is a bit generic and vague. Thinking more critically, those laws are meant to protect citizens from other citizens rather than laws to generally protect citizens. No one has a right to infringe on another persons right, yet by having a law such as Obama care; it will be ensured that such actions do not happen. Obamacare is a policy more general that protects people from everything and not from other individuals per Se. In this case, one could accept the provision of speeding limits but disregard the provision of Obama care for the reason that the former is a restriction imposed to protect each other in scenarios of infringement and negligence on peoples rights. The latter is such a paternalistic power that directly infringes on the rights of citizens to make their own autonomous choices depending on if they want health insurance or otherwise without being fined for their decisions (Murrin, 2012). Another objection on Obama care is that when the government forces citizens to purchase health insurance from private industries, it adds more problems to the health care infrastructure instead of fixing them (Murrin, 2012). When the government puts more money in the control of health insurance corporations, they are given more power to own control the decision of their customers and to continue with the trend of expensive "good health." The government also outlined the distinction between Medicaid and medicare to avoid confusion of the two services. Medicare and Medicaid curricula are programs designed by a given government to help each citizen in their life stage for the purpose of their health especially in their retirement age. The United States of America government in 1965 established these programs. However, the two programs differ from each other as far the eligibility, beneficial packages and access to the care is concerned (Buchbinder & Shanks, 2012). Medicare program is defined to help long-term care parties up to the elderly level while Medicaid covers the costs of healthcare especially those people from poor background within the states. Medicare program at large is designed for older people of more than 65 years. However, the uniqueness of this package is that anyone within the stipulated age is covered by Medicare program regardless of his or her income. This program has been harmonized into four special packages including hospitalization coverage, medical insurance, privately packages that involve both hospitalization and medical insurance packages and prescription drug coverage that works based on specific information (Jill, 2012). Medicaid program is a curriculum within medical department that helps the low-income people within the states of America to meet their medical costs within the need of medical and long-term custodial care. This package therefore has strict eligibility requirements that tend to vary from one state to the other in the States of America. This package may vary their eligibility in regards to hospitalization, X-rays , Laboratory services, Clinic treatment, Nursing services, Nursing facility services for people aged 21 or older, Family planning, Midwife services, Home healthcare for people eligible for nursing facility services, Doctor services, Medical and surgical dental services and Pediatric and family nurse practitioner services. When these packages are installed, the government should put in mind the status of their citizens and lay down attractive packages that may stimulate the morale and behaviors of the citizen towards the acquisition of these packages. Financial resources should be availed to the normal people through concessive communication (Buchbinder & Shanks, 2012). From the above arguments, it is more reasonable to argue that the Utilitarian argument is stronger than the Libertarian one. Obama care extends health insurance to millions of American citizens and helps to outlaw the worst powers of the private insurance industry. The insurance exchanges will allow people to buy coverage on a statewide market, since the law offers citizens tax subsidies, which they can use to obtain care. In addition, small employers might not forgo hiring because of coverage costs, because Obama care actually lessens smaller organizations health care spending. References Buchbinder, S. B, & Shanks, N. H. (2012). Introduction to health care management. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Jill, J, & Nolen, J. (2012). Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What’s in the Bill. Retrieved 22 November 2014 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html Murrin, T. (2012). Health Care Reform Will Show Who Really Governs Our Nation. Retrieved 22 November 2014 from http://www.examiner.com/article/health-care-reform-will-show-who-really-governs-our-nation Pipes, S. (2010). The Truth About Obamacare. New York: Regnery Gateway. Schoen, C & Stremikis, K. (June 2010). "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally, 2010 Update". Retrieved 22 November 2014 from http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund- Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx?page=all Singh, D. (2012). Essentials of the U.S. Health Care System. New York: Jones and Bartlett. Read More