More handpicked essays just for you.
Affordable care act medicaid expansion
Affordable care act medicaid expansion
Affordable care act medicaid expansion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Affordable care act medicaid expansion
If the federal government managed the healthcare at the state level the 22 states that elected not to expand Medicaid would not have left their citizens that live in poverty uninsured out in the cold. “Although 17 million Americans will become eligible for Medicaid by 2014” not every state will have the same coverages available at the same cost for their states (Richardson & Yilmazer, 2013, p. 191). The federal government would have regulates in place to prevent inconsistencies in coverage. Numerous citizens would not have to fret or be concerned that their state opted out just because they did not like what Washington was doing or to further their own political career. The Supreme Court “supine attitude” towards what all Americans need …show more content…
With one centralized provider care could be streamlined. The need to coordinate amongst state and federal lines would no longer exist. Hospitals in states like Tennessee and their ability to stay open “ grim, made worse by the healthcare reform law’s reduction in disproportionate-share payments, which were expected to be offset by Medicaid expansion. But Tennessee hospitals faced a double whammy when their state’s Republican elected leaders did not accept expanding Medicaid to adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Hospitals in the state provided more than $2.4 billion in uncompensated care in 2012” (Dickson, 2014, p. 0014). With the federal government at the helm that would not have happened. The states just can’t be trusted with the health of their citizens when they allow politics to over shadow human life. The federal government for example, financial resources could be used to fund services such as care coordination—which many insurers do not reimburse—and the data could assist with strategies such as disease management” Bascetta, 2010, p.1). On dedicated department for each state within the federal government would make their whole operation more effective because few contacts would be
Health Care workers are constantly faced with legal and ethical issues every day during the course of their work. It is important that the health care workers have a clear understanding of these legal and ethical issues that they will face (1). In the case study analysed key legal and ethical issues arise during the initial decision-making of the incident, when the second ambulance crew arrived, throughout the treatment and during the transfer of patient to the hospital. The ethical issues in this case can be described as what the paramedic believes is the right thing to do for the patient and the legal issues control what the law describes that the paramedic should do in this situation (2, 3). It is therefore important that paramedics also
While most countries around the world have some form of universal national health care system, the United States, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, does not. There are much more benefits to the U.S. adopting a dorm of national health care system than to keep its current system, which has proved to be unnecessarily expensive, complicated, and overall inefficient.
The leadership’s decision not to expand Medicaid leaves between 300,000 and 400,000 South Carolinians without health insurance (South Carolina Medical Association, 2012). The stated intent of the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively dubbed “Obamacare” by its critics, was to put affordable health care within reach of more of the 40 million Americans who lacked health insurance. The law’s grand design included an assumption that states would expand their Medicaid programs, since the federal government would pay 100 percent of the expansion costs through 2016, and 90 percent thereafter. But in demonstrating its traditional mistrust of Washington’s promises, Columbia declined the offer and, in the process, left thousands of low-income workers without the means to obtain health coverage, either because they cannot afford the premiums or because their employers do not provide it. (Advisory Committee, 2013). Ironically, in a state where the median annual income is $44,600, South Carolina’s working poor earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid; however, they would be covered under the ACA model (Hailsmaier and Blasé, 2010).
For decades, one of the many externalities that the government is trying to solve is the rising costs of healthcare. "Rising healthcare costs have hurt American competitiveness, forced too many families into bankruptcy to get their families the care they need, and driven up our nation's long-term deficit" ("Deficit-Reducing Healthcare Reform," 2014). The United States national government plays a major role in organizing, overseeing, financing, and more so than ever delivering health care (Jaffe, 2009). Though the government does not provide healthcare directly, it serves as a financing agent for publicly funded healthcare programs through the taxation of citizens. The total share of the national publicly funded health spending by various governments amounts to 4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, GDP (Jaffe, 2009). By 2019, government spending on Medicare and Medicaid is expected to rise to 6 percent and 12 percent by 2050 (Jaffe, 2009). The percentages, documented from the Health Policy Brief (2009) by Jaffe, are from Medicare and Medicaid alone. The rapid rates are not due to increase of enrollment but growth in per capita costs for providing healthcare, especially via Medicare.
There is an ongoing debate on the topic of how to fix the health care system in America. Some believe that there should be a Single Payer system that ensures all health care costs are covered by the government, and the people that want a Public Option system believe that there should be no government interference with paying for individual’s health care costs. In 1993, President Bill Clinton introduced the Health Security Act. Its goal was to provide universal health care for America. There was a lot of controversy throughout the nation whether this Act was going in the right direction, and in 1994, the Act died. Since then there have been multiple other attempts to fix the health care situation, but those attempts have not succeeded. The Affordable Care Act was passed in the senate on December 24, 2009, and passed in the house on March 21, 2010. President Obama signed it into law on March 23 (Obamacare Facts). This indeed was a step forward to end the debate about health care, and began to establish the middle ground for people in America. In order for America to stay on track to rebuild the health care system, we need to keep going in the same direction and expand our horizons by keeping and adding on to the Affordable Care Act so every citizen is content.
America is known for democracy, freedom, and the American Dream. American citizens have the right to free speech, free press, the right to bear arms, and the right to religious freedom to name a few. The Declaration of Independence states that American citizens have the rights including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America promises equality and freedom and the protection of their rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But with all the rights and freedoms that American citizens enjoy, there is one particular area where the United States seems to be lacking. That area is health care. The United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some form of legal recognition of a right to health care (Yamin 1157). Health care reform in the United States has become a major controversy for politicians, health care professionals, businesses, and citizens. Those in opposition to reform claim that health care is not a human right, therefore the government should not be involved. Supporters of reform believe that health care is most definitely a human right and should be available to everyone in the United States instead of only those who can afford it, and that it is the government’s responsibility to uphold that right.
In conclusion, there still needs to be a lot of work done to health care in the United States. Other nations provide universal health care to their citizens, but this would cause dilemmas in balancing two often conflicting policy goals: providing the public with equitable access to needed pharmaceuticals while controlling the costs. Universal health care probably would not work in the U.S. because our nation is so diverse and our economy is so complex. The system we have now obviously has its problems, and there is a lot of rom for improvement. HMO’s will still create problems for people and their medical bills, but they definitely should be monitored to see that their patients are receiving just treatment.
In recent years, the number of Americans who are uninsured has reached over 45 million citizens, with millions more who only have the very basic of insurance, effectively under insured. With the growing budget cuts to medicaid and the decreasing amount of employers cutting back on their health insurance options, more and more americans are put into positions with poor health care or no access to it at all. At the heart of the issue stems two roots, one concerning the morality of universal health care and the other concerning the economic effects. Many believe that health care reform at a national level is impossible or impractical, and so for too long now our citizens have stood by as our flawed health-care system has transformed into an unfixable mess. The good that universal healthcare would bring to our nation far outweighs the bad, however, so, sooner rather than later, it is important for us to strive towards a society where all people have access to healthcare.
The U.S. healthcare system is very complex in structure hence it can be appraised with diverse perspectives. From one viewpoint it is described as the most unparalleled health care system in the world, what with the cutting-edge medical technology, the high quality human resources, and the constantly-modernized facilities that are symbolic of the system. This is in addition to the proliferation of innovations aimed at increasing life expectancy and enhancing the quality of life as well as diagnostic and treatment options. At the other extreme are the fair criticisms of the system as being fragmented, inefficient and costly. What are the problems with the U.S. healthcare system? These are the questions this opinion paper tries to propound.
Above all, if all states have decide to follow through ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion they will conjointly pay $76 billion to insure up to 21.3 Million individuals who don't have access to health insurance for over the next decade. Regardless of what state, the federal government will help pay for 93% of the state cost of healthcare. Medicaid Expansion is a great way to help families below the federal poverty line get insurance and stay healthy. Without it, they will fall between the cracks forcing them to use Obamacare. In that case, it is projected to drive up cost of insurance for Americans.
The US health system has both considerable strengths and notable weaknesses. With a large and well-trained health workforce, access to a wide range of high-quality medical specialists as well as secondary and tertiary institutions, patient outcomes are among the best in the world. But the US also suffers from incomplete coverage of its population, and health expenditure levels per person far exceed all other countries. Poor measures on many objective and subjective indicators of quality and outcomes plague the US health care system. In addition, an unequal distribution of resources across the country and among different population groups results in poor access to care for many citizens. Efforts to provide comprehensive, national health insurance in the United States go back to the Great Depression, and nearly every president since Harry S. Truman has proposed some form of national health insurance.
I appreciate the way you explained how each state has the right to exercise their freedom in defining Medicaid eligibility. You were right to reason that each state, rather than the federal, should determine their allocation of resources based on their perception of the public health needs. Often times, it is easy to forget that Medicaid does not cover the entire poor population. Hence, people can perceive the Medicaid benefits as a guaranteed entitlement without understanding how it gets financed. While its expansion benefits the qualified individuals, I believe each state would wish for healthier and productive lives for its residents. In other words, each state would want their residents to be motivated to improve their lives
Reforming the health care delivery system to progress the quality and value of care is indispensable to addressing the ever-increasing costs, poor quality, and increasing numbers of Americans without health insurance coverage. What is more, reforms should improve access to the right care at the right time in the right setting. They should keep people healthy and prevent common, preventable impediments of illnesses to the greatest extent possible. Thoughtfully assembled reforms would support greater access to health-improving care, in contrast to the current system, which encourages more tests, procedures, and treatments that are either
Health reform and health policy has taken over in the United States in recent years. Medicaid is one of the top policies being implemented throughout our nation today. To understand how Medicaid and federalism cross paths with each other one must understand the basic definitions and concepts each one brings. Federalism is “system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern.” In short, federalism is a government system that has an overseeing central government over state government. While, “Medicaid is a health insurance program for low-income individuals and families who cannot afford health care costs. Medicaid serves low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities.” Medicaid is a test based welfare program for United States Citizens. Now the question is how does Medicaid intersect with federalism? These two intersect because Medicaid is a need-based program that is funded by the federal government and the state government and administered at the state level. The issue with Medicaid is that if it expands then a crowding-out effect may occur. Meaning, that the more the government spends on Medicaid then less they would be able to spend on other programs such as: education, transportation, or other state priorities. Medicaid is supposed to provide access to health insurance for approximately half of our nations uninsured citizens. Without Medicaid a vast amount of low-income citizens will go without having a healthcare insurance plan.
I agree with you, reading more and more about multi-payer systems, helps me have a clear understanding on why it is important in the U.S community. But I still believe that if the U.S have more preventive system, the cost would be lower due to early prevention or maintain their health. With using multi-payer system, I realized that the systems really help provide quality care. For instance, I use to work for a children hospital, and there were time when we had to transfer patients to other hospital like, Cleveland clinic and many more up scaled hospital that were able to provide better care for are patients, especially are patients with cancer. Even though it is an expensive lateral move, however, the quality of care is remarkable. Unfortunately,