More handpicked essays just for you.
Economic factors healthcare expenditure
Strengths and weaknesses of the Affordable Care Act
Strengths and weaknesses of the affordable care act as a reform to the existing u.s. healthcare system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The preamble of the US constitution states that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ...promote the general Welfare...” How does the government interpret “promote the general Welfare” does that mean the insurance of equal opportunity or does that mean an insurance of things such as food, shelter and healthcare. It must also be evaluated as to whether the US has the ability to insure such things in its current and impending economic state. In the US today, where some US citizens do not enjoy many of the niceties which other US citizens do, such as food, shelter and health care, do they have the inalienable human right to those niceties and does the government have the right to take from the rich in order …show more content…
to feed the poor? In the US today US citizens do not have the inalienable human right to those niceties because the US does not insure structural guarantees, but the procedural guarantees of equal opportunity. Furthermore even if the US believed in structural guarantees, they do not have the economic means to guarantee such things and even if they did it is immoral to take from the rich to guarantee niceties to the poor. The US was founded on a set of principles and ideas that allowed for all members of society to have the opportunity to achieve social and economic wealth regardless of predetermined, uncontrollable attributes.
This meant the insurance of opportunities such as the right to work and the right to goods and services. This guarantee is not the guarantee to be handed these goods and services, but the right to purchase these goods and services. For this reason there is no guarantee to shelter, food and health care; but there is a guarantee to purchase shelter, food and health care regardless of predetermined uncontrollable features such as race or gender. Furthermore, the Constitution establishes a set of rules and rights, such as the 4th amendment which protects us from the unreasonable search and seizure. If you apply the idea of the constitution as a set of rules and rights then how can health care be justified as a right? It is best explained by John Mackey, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Whole Foods Market, wrote in his Aug. 11, 2009 Wall Street Journal …show more content…
article, Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This 'right' has never existed in America. Even if the US provided a guarantee to shelter, food and health care, one would also have to evaluate whether the US has the economic means to support the guarantee to shelter, food and health care.
Currently under the Affordable Healthcare Act, if an individual does not have health care they are required to pay a fee in the form of a tax. This is the initial economic issue with mandate universal health care. Furthermore it can be seen by hospital and clinic costs, since hospitals and clinics cannot refuse those based on their ability to pay it has driven up the cost for those who can pay to a level to which almost no one can afford. Although this is only health care, this is mimics how it would work for food and health care. It would drive up the price of food and housing if it were mandated to be provided to all. Furthermore, this would drive us into an economic slump because “Patients would demand far more medical care because additional consumption would cost them little. Higher tax rates would discourage work and productivity, yielding less economic growth and wealth...” (Cannon). To continue Cannon’s point Mike Rosen, former CFE at Samsonite and Beatrice Foods, wrote in his Aug. 13, 2009 Denver Post
article, Distributing homes, cars, lawyers or health care via a random lottery isn't practical; it's socialism. And socialism is doomed to failure because it lacks incentives and rewards for individual productivity and excellence. In the absence of that, it ultimately collapses when it runs out of the means to spend other people's money. Thus proving the inability for the US to support a national universal health care system not only due to the upfront cost, but to the overall cost on the economic system in the US. Even if this were economically viable is it morally correct for the US to take what some have earned to give to those who do not have food, shelter and health care. Although in reality we do not have an obligation to take care of those who cannot feed and take care of themselves, we do have a moral obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. This encompasses the young, the old and the mentally ill. These are the individuals who cannot be insured of the procedural guarantees that this country believes in. The belief that the US should take care of those that cannot be assured of the procedurals guarantees taps into a fundamental and imperative principle that the US has faded from over time, the principle of charity. Although the US doesn’t have to implement a social welfare program or government subsidized housing, it is still something as Americans we should all desire to do. To help out our fellow Americans that cannot help themselves. This means taking care and providing food for those who can’t do it for themselves, the young, the old and those incapacitated to work. In the same article Mike Rosen also said that “If someone is indigent, we don't let him die on the sidewalk outside a hospital. We treat that person, as we should. We'll even send an ambulance to get him. But whether the money to pay for this comes from taxpayers, private benefactors or by shifting the cost to other patients, it's still charity. Health care isn't a right. Neither are food stamps, housing subsidies or welfare. They're all charity.” As Americans we should always be proud and willing to provide this charity.
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
The aim of affordable care act (ACA) was to extend health insurance coverage to around 15% of US population who lack it. These include people with no coverage from their employers and don’t have coverage by US health programs like Medicaid (Retrieved from, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act/). To achieve this, the law required all Americans to have health insurance which is a reason of controversy because, it was inappropriate intrusion of government into the massive health care industry and insult to personal liberty. To make health care more affordable subsidies are offered and the cost of the insurance was supposed to be reduced by bringing younger, healthier people to the health insurance system. This could be controversial, if older, sicker people who need the coverage most enter the market but younger group decline to do so. The insurance pool will be unbalanced and the cost of coverage will rise correspondingly.
Bradley depicts a certain theory of which "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really refer to the right to be protected from harm”(Bradley,2). He clearly argues that "because of the special things that it provides and protects, the right to healthcare is necessary for the enjoyment of what are commonly thought of as our basic liberty rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Bradley,1). He states that for negative rights, action in a positive manner must be
People who are in favor of universal health care in the U.S. use the argument that the U.S. was built upon the basic ideals, the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that we all have the right to at least a minimum standard of living. To deny universal health care is to deny these basic ideals and rights to the people and therefore unconstitutional. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is also immoral. It is immoral to deny people health care, allowing them to suffer and even die, just because they cannot afford it and to force people to pay so much money that they go bankrupt for a basic right. In 2007 about 62% of all U.S. bankruptcies were related to medical expenses. If the U.S. had universal health care, medical bankruptcies would no longer be an issue (Top 10 Pros & Cons). Universal health care would also be beneficial to the economy. Businesses and employers would no longer have to pay for health insurance for their employees and the government wouldn’t waste as much per capita on health care as it does now without a universal health care system. It would also allow people to be more willing to take entrepreneurial risks because they won’t fear having to go without health insurance (Why The U.S.
The Preamble states “ promote the general welfare…” (Law.com, 2015). This is saying that citizens would be cared for by the Federal Government. The Federal Government will try to take care of each citizen the best they can. For example, for those people who do not make enough income, they can receive welfare to help them out. Also, hospitals are put everywhere to take care of sick or injured people. The next line in the Preamble is “ and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity…” (Law.com, 2015). This line was included in the
In the modern day, health care can be a sensitive subject. Politically, health care in America changes depending on whom is President. Obamacare and Trumpcare are different policies regarding health care, which many people have passionate feelings towards. However, not many Americans are informed about Norman Daniels’ view on health care. Throughout this paper I will be outlining Norman Daniels’ claims on the right to health care, and the fundamental principles in which he derives to construct his argument. By means of evaluating Daniels’ argument, I will then state my beliefs regarding the distributive justice of health care.
...ll have to provide nutrition facts to help communities as a whole become healthy or continue their healthy habits. This means the economy will have fewer people covered by government-sponsored health plans. The amount of coverage required to cover all the uninsured will not be enough. According to Daniel Fisher (2012), the laws that were in place provided coverage for the poor, elderly and even about 60% of Americans who get their insurance through their employer. The sole purpose for the healthcare reform is to fix a problem that each year costs extreme amounts of money. The Healthcare reform act is to help with the economic issue of people merely staying at their jobs just so they can continue with insurance coverage. The rising cost and the complexity of healthcare systems is an imperative factor that should concern both businesses and individual
The U.S. Constitution is a good foundation for implementing health care for people all over the world and article 1 section 8 clause 1 explains the power of government when it comes to health care. According to the Enduring Democracy book, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." (Dautrich, C-5). In other words, the government has the power to allow everyone the right to health care since our taxes are already being collect for the common defense and general welfare. General welfare refers to health care in which the government may provide.
The welfare system has helped families over time sometimes for their entire lives. Welfare is a social support system that helps families. It is provided by the government. Funding for the welfare system comes from general government revenue. The welfare system was originally call the aid to dependent children and this was created in the great depression. The AFDC was created to decrease the poverty during this time in American history. Overtime the welfare system has evolved. Although welfare provides assistance to some families, some people take advantage of the system by living off of unemployment and this can cause unfair expenses for taxpayers.
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
...oral responsibility to our communities and our fellow citizens. We can’t in good conscience stand by as millions of our neighbors are denied to basic health care. Nearly 1,500 public events were taken place in all fifty states and the District of Columbia to bring commonly community leaders to retain that all Americans have rights to health care coverage. “For far too many years, our nation has not lived up to its full potential by delaying the day when all Americans will have health care coverage.” (Suffer Health Care Gaps as a Result) Health care is a right, not a privilege.
Until Obama-care, The United States was one of the only developed nations that did not provide some sort of health care for its citizens. To most other nations that do provide healthcare, it is because it is considered a human right that all people should be entitled to. That hasn’t been the case in America, however, where only those who could afford it could have healthcare plans. Those who stand to gain the most from universal healthcare are the already mentioned 45 million americans who currently don’t have any form of healthcare. For many of these individuals, there are many obstacles that prevent them from gaining healthcare. 80% of the 45 million are working class citizens, but either their employer doesn’t offer insurance, or they do but the individual can n...
Such rising health care costs penalize the citizens within our nation in multiple aspects. The first set of individuals that are affected are families and seniors because it affects the amount of money that goes into their pockets, which results in a difficult time balancing food, rent, and the basic necessities for living. Next, small businesses and fortune 500 employers are affected because such increased costs cause rising health care costs to become more expensive to add new employees to their payroll and more difficult to cover retiree fees when that time comes. Finally, the federal, state, and local governments are forced to increase Medicare and Medicaid costs, which results in cutting other priority funding such as public safety and education.
This does not really apply to this policy. While it does isolate the poorest seniors and gives them more benefits, this is not blaming them and is actually helping them survive.
When I first started to write about general welfare, I at first thought it might be a two, three maybe four part article, but it eventually morphed into TEN and now eleven parts, and I still did not cover all that I wanted to. I was however was able to cover the various arguments and circumstances surrounding the term “general welfare” in many respects. Throughout the discussion we have covered some of its first origins and uses, how it came to be part of the Constitution, and the debates about it after the Convention finished, and leading up to when the Supreme Court started to hear arguments over it [which is another entire discussion in itself]. The focus here has not been what Supreme Court has thought of the term in Article I Section 8 Clause 1, but how others thought of it before and shortly after it even became law. Why was it used, and what was its pedigree to those who decided to put it in the Constitution, and how it was viewed by those who ratified it.