Healthcare Reforms Are a Broad Term - Essay Example

? Healthcare Reforms Task Thesis: Health Care Reform would be beneficial by reducing the overall price per family requirement and medical treatment delivered. Having these basic necessities available would make living in this country easier on the mind as well as the wallet. Healthcare reforms are a broad term used to refer to major alterations/modifications to an already existing health policy or complete introduction of a new healthcare plan altogether (Kronenfeld & Kronenfeld, 2004). The reforms are usually a governmental policy and considerably rework the way health care services are delivered.Reforms endeavor to increase the number of citizens that getvarious health care services through insurance policies from both public and private companies; to diversify the variety of health care providers citizens may pickfrom; to increase the availability of various health care specialists; to better the overall healthcare quality; to increase the number of healthcare services available to customers; and to cut the healthcare costs (Kronenfeld & Kronenfeld, 2004). The Obama administration has introduced a range of far-reaching reforms of the healthcare system, the most comprehensive since the adoption of the Medicare act in 1965 (Parks, 2011). This paper will review these health care reforms since health care reforms would be beneficial by reducing the overall price per family requirement and medical treatment delivered. Having these basic necessities available would make living in this country easier on the mind as well as the wallet. Having the ability to use the hospital’s resources in a time of need is a common resource not readily available to all Americans.The combined public-private healthcare scheme that was in existent before the healthcare reforms of 2010 was one of the costliest systems globally, with the costs of health care being the highest per individual as compared to any other country (Parks, 2011). Besides, United States comes second, after East Timor, in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) that is used on healthcare among the member countries of the United Nations (Parks, 2011). An independent research on global patterns of spending on health care indicates that United States uses more than any other member state in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Williams, 2011). Regardless of the massive spending, the research indicates that usage of health care servicesis lower thanthe OECD standards by most indicators. In addition, the findings show that costs incurred by individuals for various health care services are appreciably greater in the US (Williams, 2011). Therefore, these healthcare reforms are a relief to most American families as they will have access to more affordable health care resources and services whenever they need them. For instance, they introducecost-free preventative services, prohibition of insurance companies from barring persons with pre-existing conditions from getting their policies among many other comprehensive benefits to citizens (Williams, 2011). Opponents of these reforms argue thatincreasing the hospital’s resources to the general public at a no-cost rate would spark greed. They suggest that these patients and hospitals alike would disregard the cost and expect the government to front the bill. However, this is not true; the fact is these reforms do not make the system a single-payer scheme in which the state has total control over the health care. The changes would still retain the private insurance system (Parks, 2011). The reforms are only intensifying government’s regulation over health care insurance providers. Besides, an alternative for a public insurance scheme, administered in a similar manner to Medicare, brings in additionalstatefinancing into health care and willchange the market whilstchallengingthe private insurers in an exchange (Parks, 2011). The fact is that a public schemeincreases the government’s regulation but it is not a takeover of system. Health care reform has been pitched as a no-cost item. Taxations to all classes would need to be implanted and budget cuts would affect every corner. Coverage would be paid for with the taxes collected.In particular, the reforms steer the nation further forward to curtailing the surging costs of health care that threatens to bankrupt the government in the future. The fact is that some legislation in the reforms was proposing more taxation for the wealthy class of citizens to help offset the pay the cost of reform (Williams, 2011). However, the president addressed this by calling for limited tax deductions for the rich, and guaranteed that the middle income earners would not be burdened with more taxes (Williams, 2011). Critics of the reforms have also raised arguments that illegal aliens and immigrants will receive coverage even if they do not participate in our system. This is inaccurate since these reforms rule out bankrolling insurance coverage for individuals who are non-citizens and illegal immigrants. These reforms are, in fact, a boost since in the previous system, illegal aliens and immigrants would be given healthcare services — especially in emergency cases, with the expenses often being passed to the hospitals, individuals with private insurance schemes, and at times to the taxpayers (Kronenfeld & Kronenfeld, 2004). Fraud, waste and abuse are three common factors that would deter the forward progress. These views come up for the rationale that with the increase in total coverage for every American the possibilities of abuse and malpractice cases would inevitably increase.Quite a number of rationing, fraud, waste and abuse are already in existent. For instance, an insurance provider can rescind policies so as to evade footing medical bills when an individual becomes sick (Williams, 2011). With these reforms, such actions will be prohibited.Currently, insurance providers and employersfrequently limit an individual’s selections of health care services. Those not under insurance schemes often have great difficulties accessing elective procedures. These reforms will unequivocally prohibit some kinds of rationing; for example, insurance companies will not discriminate against persons with a pre-existing health problem (Parks, 2011). Arguments being advanced that the state-funded research which compares the efficacy of various treatments options would ultimately limit the availability of certain medical services to senior citizens are untrue since it is a proven fact that the council running the research is prohibited from stipulating qualifications on insurance coverage (Williams, 2011). The aim of this research goal is to make available factual information to physicians and patients regarding the most effectual treatments for a given medical problem. In fact, private insurance have a higher likelihood as compared to than Medicare to utilize those research findings about treatment information to come up with rationing-style resolutions (Parks, 2011). Finally, health care premiums would need constant monitoring and should not be able to adjust and fluctuate for the State’s personal gain. Conclusion In conclusion, although the potential benefits of a Universal health care System are indeed visible, the cost to maintain and operate an operation such as this could potentially bankrupt our economy. I agree that there should be a system in place and I agree with the current proposed system, creating a viable health care system with the intent to benefit the American way will help keep our country living healthier longer. References Kronenfeld, J. and Kronenfeld, M. (2004). Healthcare Reform in America: a Reference Handbook. California: ABC-CLIO. Parks, D. (2011). Health Care Reform Simplified: Understanding The New Rules For Insuring Individuals, Families And Employees. New York: Apress. Williams, R. A. (2011). Healthcare Disparities at the Crossroads with Healthcare Reforms. New York: Springer. Read More