This paper looks at some of the implications of public and private heath control and measures that have been taken, or can be taken in a bid to improve health care for consumers. First off, it is important to mention possible for medical plans such as Medicare and Medicaid can in fact adopt methods like those used by insurance companies to provide payment for these health services that are in question. Thanks to the controversial Affordable Care act attention has been drawn to issues regarding healthcare for all that some people might have taken lightly(Grabowski, 2007).
The fact that a person is financially deprived or poor doesn’t mean they should get any less quality treatment. Many have been brought up in poverty and are not educated, some are educated but lack jobs and others are unable to hold jobs because of some sort of disability. The government can help provide adequate healthcare by lowering the cost to ensure all people have an insurance plan. By doing a number of things i.e. ensuring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( PPACA) does what it purports to e.g. cheaper drugs, gets rid of limits to use of insurance by companies creating possibility for people with preexisting conditions to still acquire healthcare by making a “high-risk-pool.” In addition, it can make it harder for insurers to change amount payable or drop clients once they are sick among several other actions. The aging population are not to be blamed for the lack of knowledge that might have caused them to require more and expensive care currently, the implication on this is that better policies ought to be created to ensure things to do with healthcare are kept fair for all citizens whom are protected under the PPACA as authorized by government. It is true the number of eligible recipients seems to be on the high, and this poses a threat to the logistics and functionality of these Health plans however, change might be appropriate in formulating better methods that work for the whole population though it is impossible to make everyone happy, it is possible to create a pragmatic solution.
The united Kingdom has a socialized model of healthcare that provides health services to all regardless of the amount of money one has on the other hand the USA has a privatized system which most people prefer because moving towards what the British are doing would mean Increased taxes something most people are opposed to. Many believe such a move would lower the quality of healthcare and being that the both republicans and democrats don’t see the need for such a move.
The US would face the challenge of selling this idea of increased taxes to citizens which might be a task especially people are already complaining of high taxes. The other challenge would be that of ensuring that high health standards are maintained. The fact that these institutions are privatized probably equates to a higher quality and finally, its large population of various people with different economic backgrounds and capabilities might cause a problem in deciding how much money one ought to pay in taxes for this type of move to work. This will pose a problem for those who are on both ends of the spectrum siting unfair rates of taxes.
Employer-sponsored healthcare goes a long way in helping employees who can get a limited access to certain government plans for healthcare. It should not be termed as a hindrance to the government’s plan, but rather as a buffer for what the government already offers. This is true especially since the cost of healthcare is quite high and because of the fact that at some point, people have to retire or leave jobs, they have to have somewhere to fall back on, or some kind a security for their health and the government plan does the job.
REFERENCES
Grabowski, D. C. (2007). Medicare and medicaid: Conflicting incentives for long-term care. Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 579–610. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00502.x
