16
Apr 14

Post #5: The Future of Healthcare

 

Because this is my last post, I’d like to take this time to discuss the future of healthcare. There are a multitude of factors that go into the future of healthcare. Doctors and all medical professionals are necessary, the money supply for funding healthcare is crucial, the changes in population, the development of new medicines, and the facilities and the accessibility to such medical facilities is also important.

 

Many people have positive views about the future of health care and look forward to changes in society that will better the health of our citizens. After browsing articles about the upcoming changes and evolution in healthcare, I stumbled upon an article titled “The future of health care is social, and techie” by USA Today. The article highlights the evolution of our society through rapid developments in the social media and technological sector. It describes the potential creation of devises that would be implanted under the skin and monitor their health. The person would then be able to track his or her health and subsequently be able to track their own medical data. This technology would give much autonomy to individuals as well as make a lot of advanced medical equipment and some specialists obsolete. While this innovation would not be invented for years down the road, it creates access to one’s individual health, allowing them to track it more carefully and hopefully take preventative measures. This would mean there would not be a need for X-Ray machines, or a lot of medical equipment. It would also play a large role in the necessity of doctors, whether their purpose would still be as crucial, or if their services would be now be reached electronically.

 1394314288000-health-179123453

This view sees healthcare in a positive and progressive light, without regards for costs or other potential problems. Others have very different and negative opinions on the future of healthcare.

 

Although breakthroughs in technology may solve the healthcare problem once and for all, many believe that before such medical equipment is invented and distributed to the population, our future for healthcare is not looking very bright. A common argument is one of supply and demand. According to an article by the Heritage Foundation, “The projected supply of workers fails to meet the demand associated with population growth and aging of the population.” (Workers, meaning doctors, nurses, and other medial professionals) According to this article, the number of primary care physicians is no match for the rapidly growing US population (see chart below). The problem of supply and demand will cause a decrease in the overall quality of the healthcare being provided as well as a demanding workload for physicians nationwide. As well as a supply and demand issue, health facilities nationwide need to relocate in order to fulfill all demographic areas of America. “In much of the nation, health professionals are highly concentrated in urban locations.” While this problem can be solved, the main issue is how to create new health centers without sacrificing the quality and quantity of medical professionals. To many, the ACA and universal healthcare in general are far reaching goals that our nation is not prepared to take on.

BGhealthcareworkforcetable1Page1600.gif

There are very different opinions about health care in America. Some believe that the ACA is doing well and new innovations in technology will solve the problem once and for all. Others believe that healthcare in America is going downhill fast and few solutions can solve the problem.

 

What are your opinions? What do you think healthcare will be like for your children? Or for your children’s children? Do you agree with either of the two arguments I just presented?

 

SOURCES

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/the-impact-of-the-affordable-care-act-on-the-health-care-workforce

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/shinal/2014/03/08/health-apps-sxsw-shinal/6205491/


31
Mar 14

Post #4: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby

This Just In!

If you have read or watched the news lately, the Affordable Care Act is being contested in court because a corporation, Hobby Lobby, believes that providing life-terminating contraceptives to employees is in violation of the sole owner’s of the corporation, The Green’s, religious beliefs. The Supreme Court will hear the official court case, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, in June. The case is a question of whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows for-profit companies to deny its employees health coverage of contraceptives (SCOTUS blog). This case boils down to basically a pro-life and pro-choice argument, but it also questions the purpose of health care. Does health care exist to simply provide the necessary means to ensure a healthy citizen? Or, does birth control qualify as a “necessary means” to make sure someone is healthy? Many questions arise from this controversial case.

 

Let’s look at the supporters of the plaintiff, Sebelius, and some reasons why they believe that a company is responsible for covering all types of contraceptives in an employee’s health care.

Kathleen Sebelius, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services has supported pro-choice movements in recent years and represents her stance on the issue in this particular case. For her and her supporters, it boils down to a matter of choice and rights. Everyone should have the right to use contraceptives, right? While some disagree based on religious grounds, supporters of Sebelius feel differently because, they think that choice and fundamental rights override a family’s religious convictions. Sebelius has made great progress in the implementation of ObamaCare. Taking full action for the “crash” of the Obamacare website, Sebelius has been under constant attack by the conservatives. Using the temporary website falter as fuel to the fire, many Republicans say [these issues] “prove the law is unworkable” (CNN.com). The Right has made excuse after excuse to attack ObamaCare. Dealing with the Hobby Lobby case in particular, a serious question of whether corporations are protected in the Religious Freedom Act of 1993 is also of concern. It does not explicitly state that corporations are protected under the Act, making Hobby Lobby potentially unable to exercise it’s right to withhold the contraceptives. This interpretation will mean everything come the hearing.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Case Challenging Affordable Care Act RNS-STEVE-GREEN f 1525209_728999737120672_792154527_n Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Case Challenging Affordable Care Act

 

There are also those who favor Hobby Lobby’s position, and believe health care should not include life-terminating contraceptives in its employee coverage and that doing so violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Many believe that the Greens have a moral and ethical responsibility to hold their company to the high religious standards they practice. (c-span.org). Those on the Hobby Lobby side of the fence strongly denounce Sebelius’ views on abortion. Because Sebelius is an extreme supporter of abortion rights and is Catholic, a religion that openly condemns abortion and the use of contraceptives, anyone with a pro-life attitude would favor the Green Family in their decision to withhold the contraceptives to their employees. The Greens and their family business have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved contraceptives required by the law that do not interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg (HobbyLobbycase.com). A genuine question is why can’t the other few objectionable drugs that are potentially life threatening be bought elsewhere? They are widely available and affordable. While health care is meant to ensure a person is able to get access to necessary medication, care, and treatment at a respectable or low cost, when did birth control constitute as being a “necessary” need? Giving greater access to medications will open up the flood gates to people wanting more and more out of health care. Religious rights are coveted and should be protected, rather than the right for someone to buy a birth control pill.

 

What do you think the outcome of the Hobby Lobby Case will be? What are your opinions on the case? How do you think the case will be interpreted?

 

 

Sources:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/

http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/faq/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06/sebelius-defends-abortion-as-a-right-between-a-woman-and-her-priest-video/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception-mandate/

http://www.c-span.org/video/?318462-2/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-case-reaction

 


19
Mar 14

Post #3: Compare and Contrast

Because none of us are experts in healthcare, we are probably unaware of the various health care systems found in other countries. Today I am going to examine the four primary models of healthcare that are implemented all over the world. I also listed potential issues with each type of healthcare system.  I would like comments to reflect on your opinions about each model, and perhaps if you believe America should adopt one of these models, or if you think American health care resembles one of the following models.

 

Model #1

The Beveridge Model

This type of healthcare is completely government run. The government has ownership over (most) of the hospitals and clinics. All doctors, even if they are private doctors, receive their pay from the government. The government thus has control over the costs of medical visits, treatment, and procedures. The government via tax dollars funds the system. This type of healthcare can be found most notably in Great Britain, Spain, and New Zealand.

Problems: Many believe this is a form a “socialized medicine” where government’s are going out of their sphere of jurisdiction to force people to have medical insurance. From a libertarian or conservative viewpoint, this option is unfavorable because it involves heavy interference from government in terms of regulating pay of doctors and by almost completely controlling the health system.

 

Model #2

The Bismarck Model

Named after the famous unifier of the German state, the Bismarck model uses an insurance based system financed both by employees and employers. This model is similar to America’s model although, in the ideal Bismarck healthcare system, everyone should have health insurance. Unlike the Beveridge Model, both the doctors, hospitals, and clinics are run independent of the government. Although the Bismarck Model is a multi-payer system, the government still plays a role managing healthcare costs. The Bismarck model is found unsurprisingly in Germany, France, Belgium, Japan and many other countries.

Problems: Nations that employ this system suffer greater costs and are often less efficient. Physicians are paid much less than their American counterparts. Although the state plays a role in controlling costs, they can be unsuccessful, and higher premiums must be paid resulting in a higher price for health insurance.

 

Model #3

The National Health Insurance Model

This Model is a mix of the previous two models, combining both private and government elements in the system. In this model, the providers of health insurance are made up of the private-sector, but the payment is derived from a government-run insurance program. All citizens fund this program. Because insurance companies are not a profit gaining business in this model, this type of health care can be more cost effective and easier to administer than insurance companies that do generate a profit. A unique part of this model is that each single payer of health insurance has the ability to use “market power” to negotiate for lower health service prices. This model is found in Canada and more recently Taiwan and South Korea.

Problems: A jurisdiction problem can arise combining both the government and private sectors into this type of system. The government limits the number of services they will pay for, potentially creating long waits for those in need of secondary care.

 

Model #4

The Our-of-Pocket Model

The three previous models of health care for the most part apply to developed and industrialized countries, which doesn’t actually comprise many of the world’s countries. “Healthcare” is some poorer and rural regions of the world can consist of local healers with home-made remedies. Basically, those who are lucky enough to scrape up enough money to afford a doctor or medicine are able to receive medical care. People can go a lifetime without ever attending a doctor’s office. This “model” of health care is one that is almost always implemented in underdeveloped nations.

Problems: The real problem with this model is a lack of any funding and education about health care services. Without those two elements, it would be hard to improve this system.

**This is a chart comparing countries’ level of spending on healthcare and the life expectancy of that country. Notice how much the USA spends!

Health_systems_comparison_OECD_2008

 

SOURCES

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

http://healthmatters4.blogspot.com/2011/01/national-health-insurance-model.html

 


26
Feb 14

Post #2: When There’s A Downhill, There’s An Uphill

Another perspective we can examine when looking at health care is how exactly the new health care bill has affected everyday people. While I could write a novel on the many effects of the Affordable Care Act on the American population, I will condense it down to the most important changes that our country has faced due to recent health care reform.

 

No Pre-Existing Conditions are Examined by a Health Insurer

Previous to the implementation ACA, people could be denied healthcare or overcharged because they had a poor medical history. This targeted low income Americans specifically, because health insurers were only willing to cover at risk patients at a steep price. Now, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, people have equal access to receiving health care. The question is, what could be an issue with this? Why is it that so many people are upset that the previously (sick) uninsured population is now being covered?

 

Insurance with Mom and Dad until You’re 26

Yes, contrary to previous health care laws, young adults are now allowed to stay on their parent’s health care plan until they reach the age of 26. This raises many arguments and questions, however. Before, most young adults were kicked off their parents’ plans by the age of 21. Many of those who were of that age were absent of any health care coverage or paid for the bare minimum of benefits.  The ACA lifts the burden off younger adults and allows for them to retain the advantages of their parent’s health care. This presents benefits to young adults, relieving them of the stress of covering themselves; but, this change implements problems as it can possibly be financially difficult for the parents to continue to provide their young adult child with the costs of health care.

 

To the eyes of many, the two previous adjustments in the health care system seem like a good approach to insuring Americans. However, many problems arise when we look at the funding for Obamacare. According to a CNN article titled “The Real Problems of Obamacare”, “Obamacare purports to finance itself with taxes only on upper-income Americans.” Even left-leaning news stations, like CNN, are aware of the burden the Affordable Care Act places on wealthy Americans. While the government is not specifically targeting the wealthy and forcing them to finance the ACA, without the monetary support of the rich, health care reform would be highly unlikely. As like many government programs which can attribute their financial support from the wealthy’s taxes, Obamacare adds another level of government programs taking from the rich and redistributing to the masses. This ignites problems among many in the upper strata of society because they may feel as if they are directly paying for other people’s health insurance.

 

Another important implication that many overlook is the financial costs the government is responsible for because of the Affordable Care Act. Adding government programs raises the national deficit. There is not complicated logic to that statement. When looking at Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, it is evident that our nation’s debt has skyrocketed as more and more people qualify for such programs. But, many people don’t see the immediate problems of a government with an extraordinary level of debt. Those who oppose Obamacare are often those who look at the scope of the government as a whole and in a long-term perspective. As our population increases, or requires more medical attention, where will the funding come from? Yes, Obamacare may improve the availability of insurance now, but, in the future, will it have really paid off?

 

I ask you to look at the benefits and drawbacks of the Affordable Care Act I have just mentioned and the effects it has had on our citizens. Which side do you fall on? Do you agree or disagree with any points I have made? Please share your thoughts on the recent changes our society has faced.

 

**Here are additional arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act**

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/10/07/7-big-health-insurance-changes-from-obamacare/

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm


05
Feb 14

Post #1: Universal or Not?

 

If you have ever applied for a drivers license, went on a mission trip with your church, or have even participated in a sport in school, a copy of you Health Insurance identification card was probably required before you were allowed to undertake any of those events. The term “health care” is almost taboo in our society today. It holds a very complicated and politically orientated stigma, especially in our country. For this blog I am going to expand my discussions on different facets of health care.

Health-Care

The main issue we are facing is whether or not health care should be mandatory for citizens to have or if it should be a privately bought and not enforced by the government. This issue is not as black and white as many people think it is.

 

Those who favor the governments intervening in forcing citizens to purchase health care generally believe in greater government control over such issues. Arguments used to coerce others into believing that health care should be universal are centered on the baseline of health care being a “human right,” and serves as an equalizer in society. Meaning, those who are faced with impoverished conditions are still given the same medical treatment and rights as those who are wealthy. In addition to social benefits in society as a direct cause of universal health care, the idea that the economy would prosper from universal health care isalso a widespread belief. When people do not have health care, they fail to receive general check ups, causing them to possibly contract diseases or illnesses otherwise diagnosed. The lack of early medical attention causes high costs later when the uninsured patient is very ill and needs to seek expensive treatment. The ability for all citizens to have the right to go to the doctor will allow for the absence of the high bills in the emergency room. The basic right for people to be able to sustain their life for a much longer period of time by having the ability to go to doctors and specialists is an important position those in favor of health care hold.

stethoscope

Those who are opposed to the idea of universal healthcare are usually laissez faire supporters when it comes to the government action. The main point many anti-universal health care advocates try to drive home is that you cannot force people to purchase health care. In contrast with many of those who do believe in health care for all citizens, people who do not support this often believe that health care is not a right. It is not specified in the Declaration of Independence that our nation’s citizens were guaranteed health care for all, nor does the Bill of Rights explicitly state that a responsibility of the government is to provide health care for the citizens. In addition, economically, health care is a burden to society. Not only would universal health care potentially raise taxes, allocating tax dollars in disproportionate ways, but it would further distribute wealth away from the rich to the poor. This reflects the similarities between various government programs such as food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid which have not only redistributed much of the money earned by the people in our country, but have increased the government’s deficit dramatically. To some, health care is another hand out which could discourage productivity of those who are able to obtain it for a low cost. The government’s intervention in regulating health care companies discourages competition among private health care insurance companies reducing the true benefits of capitalism.

 

So, is universal healthcare better for society, or should we leave it up to the citizens to decide?


Skip to toolbar