Introduction



The issue of health care in the United States has consistently been a concern for the public. This paper is going to look into the possible courses of action regarding the development of the healthcare strategies in the country. Specifically, the discussion will comprise of the arguments on the establishment of a national healthcare system and the dependence of the public on health maintenance organizations (HMOs).



Dependence on Health Maintenance Organizations



Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) serve as both suppliers and insurers of health care in the US. They usually offer prepaid unlimited and inclusive medical care for physical illnesses of any Kind. HMO’s vary from more conventional fee-for-service health schemes in a lot of ways. (Abraham et al., 2000) For example, HMO’s usually do not limit the days of care and spending for medical services. Similarly, HMO’s have agreed to give medical coverage at a preset cost, and therefore have an included incentive to manage costs. The consequence is that HMO’s highlight preventive health care. For instance, their members are typically granted intervallic physical exams, which are less generally covered under fee-for-service schemes.


Moreover, HMOs are essentially businesses intended to make the most of profitability in every imaginable manner. There is a possibility that what someone has to do in the hospital industry what McDonald’s has carried out in the fast-food industry and what Wal-Mart has implemented in the retailing industry. (Ginsburg, 1996, p. 18) Under the concept of capitalism, health care services are analogous to fast food. This means that health care is similarly a product to be purchased and sold, akin to hamburgers and onion rings. It could be seen in the managed care sector that money exhausted on patient care is deemed as a “medical loss.”


Moreover, HMOs have been the motivation following the remarkable decline in hospital stays. This brought about the now recognized “drive-through-delivery.” Patients on respirators or not capable of walking are released from the hospital when they have challenging injuries or situations that could destabilize any second (Gordon & McCall, 1999). And progressively, more friends and families acquire the load of management for patients whether they are skilled or are aware of the medical apparatus and treatments that are required to be directed. The wide scale presentation of managed care has not made health care more reachable or inexpensive. The cost of health care increases annually as does the quantity of the uninsured.



Establishment of a National Healthcare System



The case of the United States, regrettably, is the sole developed nation in the world that has not instituted universal health coverage. It is projected that 42.6M individuals have no health insurance (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). The failure of health coverage and hindrances in care has brought about many individuals’ deaths. (Himmelstein & Woolhandler, 1994) The Medicaid agenda has endured noteworthy modifications ever since its setting up. In 1996, the legislative branch of the government ratified the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193). The law adopted time restrictions and rigid work conditions. In New York, the amount of individuals on Medicaid reduced by 265,348 or 9% while in Texas by 306,890 or 11% (Pear, 1999). Unskilled welfare beneficiaries have a tendency to acquire low-salaried occupations with no health benefits. When managers do tender coverage, the monthly premiums are frequently not inexpensive (Pear, 1998). The welfare-to-work schemes in every state have brought about a rising number of adults and children who either don’t meet the criteria or are disconnected from health benefits the moment they come in to the workforce.


There is also the recommendation of a national health care system with a single-payer involved to answer the current crisis. In this context, the single payer is the federal government. A national health care system would get rid of the health insurance companies. Each individuals would be protected by and have admission to the similar health services granted by the federal government. Only under a national health care system, with admittance assured to everyone, can health care accurately grow to be a human right.


To illustrate, In 1993 Senator Daniel Inouye, launched the National Health Care Act, suggestion for a Canadian-approach single-payer scheme (Mizrahi, 1995). The thought of a national health care system, in which the government would make use of tax money to finance universal health coverage, taking away health care from the responsibility of private insurance corporations and company owners, entailed popular espousal. (Samuelson, 1993) Annually, public espousal increases for a national health care system carried out by the government similar to those in Canada and Europe.



Conclusion



The sole manner in which people can prevail on a benevolent health care system is by structuring a well-built, social movement that compels the government to put an end to the health insurance industry and set up a national health care system. There are no available inroads to structuring this movement. Those in power, both Democrats and Republicans, will not ratify nationalized health care except if they are obligated to by a great, well-ordered, social movement. The public is required to be a part of structuring this movement. In the mean time, the constant monitoring of HMOs should be vigilantly implemented by the government as it is in the process of instituting a nationalized health care system. The government should constantly make sure that the public is safe from any perverted measures that these companies might take in order to gain profit.




Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top