First the pro side, the first main issue is the fact that the 32 million Americans that don’t have health care will now have access to health care coverage. Many Americans can’t afford health care coverage and this policy lowers the cost so that more Americans will have the opportunity to get the coverage they need. Another pro is that people with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage. Insurance companies have been getting away with denying people the coverage they need because they either get sick or because they have a preexisting condition and this policy puts an end to all of that. Lastly, the amount of personal bankruptcies will be reduced.
This type of universal health care seems to do more for less. All Canadian and UK citizens have access to healthcare no matter what their economic status should be. In America we have roughly 45 million Americans uninsured and the only access to medical care they have is the Emergency Room. It is thought that a publicly-funded system would deliver better health outcomes and distribute health resources more fairly (Grossman, M., 2009). Maybe this would include the distribution of physicians, as well?
In the first week since budget night, Primary Health Care share prices fell 6%. This will reduce consumer confidence in healthcare companies, resulting in a fall in demand. There is the likelihood Australian people will put off visiting their GP because of the co-payment, therefore resulting in an overload in hospitals which could potentially cost the government more. Due to the co-payment also applying to imaging services, people are unlikely to find out if something is wrong with them because they may be put off by the co-payment, possibly increasing mortality
For instance, the healthcare reform, an aging population that relied on Medicare and Medicaid and state deficits, and the need for updated technology had impacted Swedish dramatically. By 2011, Swedish Medical Center was losing an estimated $250,000 a day. Swedish was in the midst of opening a new facility in an outlining area of the Seattle. The losses were not a reflection of the opening of a new facility but rather the changes in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements and the decline of health insurance. They had predicted a loss for the new facility within the budget but they were not able to predict the economic downturn.
There was also nothing there for the old before that ether, they basically had to work until they died as they had no money otherwise or be sent to the poor house which was embarrassing. The act was passed as the old had to rely on their children who often couldn’t even pay for themselves and they were becoming a burden. You had to be 70 to receive a pension which was far too high as most of the people that needed it had died by then from not having a good standard of living. The age for being able to receive was far too high as people that needed the pension were too unhealthy to live that long anyway. If you were single you got five shillings a week and seven and a half if you were married.
The lack of school material, clothes, or even living in terrible conditions can lead to the not reaching their full potential due to the lack of motivation. The government in 2012 released 3.5 billion dollars to The Native American Reservations, which for 350,000 people is equivalent to 1000 dollars (Volz, “$3.4B Indian Lawsuit Ends, Disbursements to Begin”). However, how far might this money go in a struggling household? The insufficient environment that Native Americans live in is nothing like we might find in any cities in the Northwest. The lack of motivation caused by years of not having a job and watching your family suffer in poverty is a condition that not too many of us are familiar with.
Stan Dixon February 2012 In these times of economic austerity, the Paramedic may be a luxury we can’t afford. Technicians and A&E support are effective and cheaper. Discuss this statement using evidence from the literature. The current economic downturn has forced cuts in public services which, for many years, have been taken for granted. As the country struggles to regain control over its finances, is it right to consider paramedics a luxury which can be replaced by less costly emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and A&E Support?
The U.S. performs worse on life expectancy and infant mortality (Edmonds, Molly, 10 September, 2009). An American Citizen pays more for health care, but has fewer doctor appointments each year than citizens of other countries. Molly Edmonds states, “When an American citizen spends the night in the hospital, it costs 5.6 times more than it would cost a person in Japan” (10 September, 2009, p. 2, para 2). So, when comparing hospital stays to other countries, the United States charge more for hospital
S.B. Tyler English 1020-059 5 April 2011 The Cost of Health care and the People Who Need It It is beneficial economically for the United States to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The United States spends approximately $2 trillion on health care cost and over 40 million Americans do not have health insurance. If the Health care Reform bill passes, not only will all of the United States citizens have health care but the deficit will decrease a great amount. Health care reform has been a major issue in the United States for centuries.
The number one cited concern for opponents concerns the initial investment costs of developing such a system. Given the status of the economy and the government’s financial problems, and an immediate investment of an estimated $634 billion and $1.5 trillion over 10 years, the United States simply cannot afford to implement a system in the immediate future (CATO, 2011). A lesser concern, but valid nonetheless, is the idea that government mandated healthcare will eliminate the private healthcare industry and reduce in a lack of incentive to pursue medical professions due to lower earnings and more government control (2011). The most significant concern is what role will politics play in government sponsored universal healthcare. With heated issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and even assisted death, how can the government ensure medical policies do not change as fast as politicians in