Question

A hot topic in today’s news is the rising cost of health care and how we, as a country can provide health coverage. Is healthcare a right or choice? Do you believe health care should be regulated and government funded? Or do you believe health care should be provided by the private sector and allow competition to manage the risk and access of healthcare. In addition, what are some viable alternatives to this problem? What implications might these alternatives have with respect to other individuals? Please include the market structures and governments role in the health care industry (think about unit three and the market structure i.e... pure competition, monopoly etc..). While you have some flexibility in the way that you complete this assignment, please be sure to address the questions mentioned above as you gather information about the topic. Your response should be a minimum of 500 words and should cover the main points above. You are expected to have a least two references (include U

Answer 1

While it’s true that the government does assist the elderly, the poor, and the disabled in obtaining these basic necessities, these programs don’t apply to everyone. To receive such state assistance, one must first qualify by meeting certain criteria.

So there is no right to have food, water, or shelter, and even most liberals stop short of saying that it is the responsibility of the government to provide them to everyone.

A privilege can be defined as a “special right or advantage, available only to a particular group of people.”

Clearly, there is no privileged group of Americans who are the only ones that can find food, water, or shelter; the majority of us are able to eat, drink, and live comfortably, without any financial help from the government whatsoever.Unlike food, water, or shelter, health care is not a necessity. Health care may be able to make us healthier, alleviate pain and suffering, and prolong life, but it isn’t essential on a day-to-day, or even routine basis.

Because it’s a great platform for big government proponents on the Left to take a moral stance, and promote their agenda by claiming that only the government can fix our broken health care system.

Calling health care a right also sets up a false argument against conservatives: anyone who opposes the idea of “health care for all,” must take the cruel and heartless stance that health care is deserved only by a few.

over 1/3 of Americans with health insurance get their coverage through the government, and these programs pay for virtually all of those recipients’ health care.

In most countries, the government pays for health care provided by private companies. These include the systems in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Singapore, and Switzerland. U.S. examples are Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. The United States also provides subsidies to health insurance companies through Obamacare.

When the government both pays for and provides the services, that is socialized medicine. The United Kingdom has this. The United States has it with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the armed forces.

Countries often combine universal health coverage with other systems to introduce competition. These include pay as you go, prepay, and private insurance models. These options can lower costs, expand choice, or improve care.

When governments pay for health care, they work to ensure doctors and hospitals provide quality care at a reasonable cost. They must collect and analyze data. They can also use their purchasing power to influence health care providers.

The demand for universal health care began in 1948, the year the World Health Organization declared health care a basic human right.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in 2010, established “shared responsibility” between the government, employers, and individuals for ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable and good-quality health insurance. However, health coverage remains fragmented, with numerous private and public sources, as well as wide gaps in insured rates across the U.S. population. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicare, a federal program for adults 65 and older and some people with disabilities, and works in partnership with state governments to administer both Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a conglomeration of federal–state programs for certain low-income populations.

Private insurance is regulated mostly at the state level. In 2014, state and federally administered health insurance marketplaces were established to provide additional access to private insurance coverage, with income-based premium subsidies for low- and middle-income people. In addition, states were given the option of participating in a federally subsidized expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

Pharmaceutical drugs cost too much. The new ones are always so expensive.

Hence, we need more regulations. And, the government should impose them. Set price limits. Cap drugmaker profits. This will make it better for all of us. The paternalism of our government should be the strongest when we are ill. Because we may need that medicine.

We need to regulate the providers of medicine. We can do this because there are plenty of physician apostles supportive of "evidence-based medicine." Besides, this is an easy concept to sell.

We need to regulate the computer systems used for healthcare. Because if left up to natural rules of progress, the healthcare industry might never decide to use them. So, we will sign into law the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH). This will incentivize the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems that only we have certified.

"Government healthcare" refers to government funding of healthcare services via direct payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers.

In U.S. government healthcare, doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals are not employed by the government. Instead, they provide medical and health services, as normal, and are reimbursed by the government, just as insurance companies reimburse them for services.

An example of a successful U.S. government healthcare program is Medicare, established in 1965 to provide health insurance for people aged 65 and over, or who meet other criteria such as disability.

The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world, democratic or non-democratic, without universal healthcare for all citizens provided by government-funded coverage.

The government should regulate things more so we can get it cheaper.

Most Democrats in Congress support universal healthcare coverage for all Americans which offers various options for insurance providers, and includes a low-cost, government-funded healthcare option.

Under the multi-option scenario, Americans satisfied with their present insurance can opt to keep their coverage. Americans dissatisfied, or without coverage, can opt for government-funded coverage.

Republicans complain that the free-market competition offered by a lower-cost public-sector plan would cause private-sector insurance companies to cut their services, lose customers, would inhibit profitability, or go entirely out of business.

Many progressive liberals and other Democrats believe strongly that the only fair, just U.S. healthcare delivery system would be a single payer system, such as Medicare, in which only low-cost government-funded healthcare coverage is provided to all Americans on an equal basis.

Pros of Government Healthcare

• Free choice of doctor and hospital;
• No bills, no co-pays, no deductibles;
• No exclusions for pre-existing conditions; you are insured from the day you are born;
• No bankruptcies due to medical bills;
• No deaths due to lack of health insurance;
• Cheaper. Simpler. More affordable;
• Everybody in. Nobody out;
• Save taxpayers billions a year in bloated corporate administrative and executive compensation costs.

Cons of Government Healthcare

Conservatives and libertarians oppose U.S. government healthcare mainly because they don't believe that it's a proper role of government to provide social services to private citizens.

Instead, conservatives believe that healthcare coverage should continue to be provided solely by private-sector for-profit insurance corporations or possibly by non-profit entities.

In 2009, a handful of Congressional Republicans have suggested that perhaps the uninsured could obtain limited medical services via a voucher system and tax credits for low-income families.

Conservatives also contend that lower-cost government healthcare would impose too great of a competitive advantage against for-profit insurers.

For all intents and purposes, there are two main types of hospitals: public hospitals and private hospitals. The former tend to be much larger than the latter, so they are also called "big hospitals." Private hospitals, on the other hand, tend to be a lot smaller.

Public hospitals are funded by local, state and federal funds. As a result, they cannot turn anyone away. Even if someone who is entirely penniless comes in, the hospital must treat him or her. Because they are privately owned, private hospitals have the right to refuse treatment. By law, however, they must stabilize anyone who is in an emergency situation and may then send him or her to a public hospital.

Pros and Cons of Private Hospitals

Many people prefer going to private hospitals for emergencies and various treatments. Some advantages include:

• Thanks to their smaller size, they are more equipped to offer personalized care.
• Instead of being responsible for dozens of patients, nurses usually only have a few to care for at a time.
• They tend to stay on the cutting edge of technology more easily than public hospitals, and they often have upscale amenities that make them feel more like nice hotels than hospitals.
• Wait times tend to be short, and doctor-to-patient ratios are usually excellent.

There are significant drawbacks to private hospitals, too. For example:

• They often only accept limited forms of insurance.
• They have the right to refuse to treat anyone who they don't think can pay.
• They also tend to be more expensive in general.
• Finally, they usually have very limited numbers of beds.

Pros and Cons of Big, Public Hospitals

When most people need a hospital, they generally wind up at a big, public one. Some benefits to a public hospital include:

• Public hospitals can't turn anyone away, so you're sure to receive treatment when you visit one.
• Because they are publicly funded and not for profit, they are usually a lot more affordable than private hospitals.
• Due to their size, they also usually have a lot more beds than private hospitals.

As for the drawbacks of public hospitals, there are some to consider.

• Their sheer size is a big one.
• Although they have way more employees than private hospitals, patient-to-doctor ratios don't tend to be very good.
• You are almost certain to wait when visiting the ER. Depending on the time of day and the nature of your emergency, you could wait for hours before being seen.
• There isn't e much in the way of personalized care because nurses are often overloaded with patients. After all, public hospitals can't refuse anyone.

In an emergency, there's not time to pick and choose between big hospitals and private ones. When arranging treatments, however, you have the luxury of weighing the pros and cons of each. Ultimately, the decision will hinge on which facility accepts your type of insurance and on whether there's enough room for you in the first place. If you have a particular doctor in mind, you will want to choose the hospital where he or she works. Other than that, the best way to make your final decision is by researching specific information about the available options. At the end of the day, good care is available at big hospitals and private ones alike.

Health care can be provided through public and private providers. Public health care is usually provided by the government through national healthcare systems. Private health care can be provided through “for profit” hospitals and self-employed practitioners, and “not for profit” non-government providers, including faith-based organizations.

There is considerable ideological debate around whether low- and middle-income countries should strengthen public versus private healthcare services, but in reality, most low- and middle-income countries use both types of healthcare provision. Recently, as the global economic recession has put major constraints on government budgets—the major funding source for healthcare expenditures in most countries—disputes between the proponents of private and public systems have escalated, further fuelled by the recommendation of International Monetary Fund (an international finance institution) that countries increase the scope of private sector provision in health care as part of loan conditions to reduce government debt. However, critics of the private health sector believe that public healthcare provision is of most benefit to poor people and is the only way to achieve universal and equitable access to health care.