Table of Contents
In as much as healthcare may not be free, its provision should not be done with exploitation to the recipients. Health is a basic necessity, and every citizen should see that he or she can afford or control it. Individual health covers tend to be different from those that are based on the employer. The individual market offers no bargaining powers, thus, making it hard for its clients to obtain them. Clients should be empowered to bargain for their covers, considering that most of them are unemployed. In most cases, those who benefit are those in the job market, where they can depend on empowered employer based systems.
Claims for damage usually increase every day, and the insurance company gets close to being overwhelmed. The challenge to reduce the liabilities has become more of their concern, rather than making it a client-centered issue. However, they usually compensate this by spilling the punishment to the consumer. Those who do not have the bargaining powers are slapped harder. However, if liabilities’ control was not made effective, then provision of covers even to those with bargaining powers would collapse. This raise questions as to why these insurance companies manipulate the fact that they have to induce these controls and gain more by extending control levels. That means the United States require a health reform plan.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Pharmaceutical companies make their world an issue of sizeable profit, making and remaining competitive. Pharmaceuticals’ provision should be nationalized. This will align medicine back to natural science and care of human beings. It will make medicine shift from being a business back to being a humanitarian science. However, when pharmaceuticals are privatized, there is competition in the quest of discovering better medicine, thus, making the companies and the medics work harder. On the other hand, the therapies and treatments available are there under the motivation of sizeable profits. On the other hand, would they be as effective, as they are without such motivation. Maybe the government would subsidize the treatments (Jacobs H. L.,1999). Has it not subsidized enough treatments?
Many have seen that the solution towards a more humanitarian provision of health covers could be through the creation of the national health insurance (Carter E.L.,1998). Efforts to create such an institution have failed. Labor unions and physicians have opposed to the move. This attributes to the fact that health cover advantages usually favor them. They would work hard in efforts to protect their advantages. However, one should not escape the fact that they are professionals who are aware of negative latent implications of the move. They are aware that privatization usually produces competitive and resourceful commodities, and efforts to make some issues national would mean laxity by medical practitioners. However, they hold on myths that the United States health provision is the most powerful, and it is not in need of desperate measures to make it better. Is it not the best in world? That may sound less debatable considering that United States is a super power, but that does not mean that the United States do not have such problem (Carter E.L.,1998). The more a country is complex, the more the problems needed to be solved. The provision of health is not an exemption.
Indeed, healthcare reforms are not about politics. Without healthy citizens, leadership would also be hard. It is about people’s lives that need to be protected. There is an agony when a person moves from a hospital bed to the court dock. Does the patient actually heal? He is not, because his physical sickness turns into a legal sickness. The national healthcare reforms would bring in freedom in health cover, and choice of high quality. This means that a person will not have to be liable to profit-oriented insurance companies. However, reforming that way would mean that financial restraints will slap those who depend on a regular salary, in case of terminal illnesses that need heavy financing. It would be a negative reform to them. The government will be able to provide the consumer protection from exploitative policies that the insurance companies advocate (Jacobs H. L.,1999). Also, consumers will be protected from competitive measures that the insurance companies put in place to the disadvantage of the consumer. Also, the government will be skyrocketing health costs under the control. The government can subsidize some of the costs and determine the costs that should be charged for various covers.
The current condition in the United States makes one wonder, whether a person should feel at ease after a misfortune, or he should wander in stress and fear of law suits, and compensation liabilities. Healthcare covers should make the clients feel at ease. Nevertheless, after reforming in that way, to some people it would mean laxity in seeking the healthcare cover. Would that translate to higher mortality rates?
Conclusion
Surely, the United States desperately require a health reform move. The healthcare sector needs to go back to, when it was more humanitarian, rather than business-oriented. The government should look for ways to sensitize the issue even to those who oppose it. The opposition should be made aware that this is nothing to do with politics. It is the high time that the United States stop holding myths about its people’s health, because health is something practical rather than abstract. Insurance companies need to return to the age of protecting its clients, rather than exploiting them. For sure, healthcare in the United States is so challenging that it also needs a health cover. The reform is crucial.