American_Health_Reform

My intentions are to discuss how the information in the article was misrepresented and manipulated to quantify the rational of why the local, state, and Federal Government should slow down the growth of health care costs. I will point out issues that have been manipulated to quantify the article- - Using 2008 dollars to show a 4 percent increase over a 32 year period - Inefficiency of Medicare and Medicaid as the costs are passed to local, state, and Federal governments budgets - How the Government health care reform will decrease the deficit and increase quality of life - Catastrophic health issues are not addressed - Throughout the whole article the use of empirical evidence I intend to point out that the information is misleading and manipulated to justify why America needs a Government health care reform. I present what was attempted through prior administrations and why we need to keep what America currently has in place and so points that have driven health care to the brink of failure. As an American that has used the current system throughout my entire life and have witnessed the changes of the health care system, some for the good, and some that only effected a small few and why we as Americans need a change but not based on a Government controlled health care system. American Health Care Reform How can a government that cannot control their fiscal spending manage a health care system that America desperately needs' As statics and opinions show Americans need an affordable, sensible health care system. Allowing local, state, and Federal government to take total control over which physician that can be seen and what treatments will be covered based on the governmental fiscal needs is not the right answer to America’s health care problems. The government is trying to reduce the cost of health insurance for the individual, employer, state, and federal governments and disguise it as a reduction in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The report intimidates the individual taxpayer with calculations of the fictitious increases based on current dollars - for the sake of the report it was based on 2008 dollars - and shows the increases over a 32 year period with an increased individual cost of 4 percent. The article points out that the Medicare system is so inefficient and cost variances throughout each individual state are so high and that it consumes 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Medicare and Medicaid are two bureaucratic systems that have been abused by the government and the medical system. and the nature of both systems are antiquated and should either be abolished completely or reevaluated, revamped, and regulated, not by the government, to actually meet the needs of the people that depend on it. The government’s main reason for the tremendous concern of health care cost in a technically private health care society system is that 50 percent of the health care is paid by the Federal, state, and local governments through Medicare and Medicaid which naturally has an impact on their perspective budgets. The main idea behind the plan is to slow down the growth of health care costs, directly affecting at least in theory standard of living increases, national savings, reduction of the deficit, and reduced unemployment. According to the article health care will consume over 34 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 2040 based on current trends and analyst views. A Government ran Health Care System would reduce the expenditures for premiums for the individual and the employer resulting in a spending decrease for both and leaving the parties concerned with more capital to spend This again would lead to a reduction of the federal deficit. If the government or an outside agency would regulate the insurance agencies and doctors and monitor and standardize the cost, would it not provide the same results giving all individuals concerned additional monies to spend. The article argues that under the current system the United States has the most technological advancements and medical discoveries compared to any other country. This may be stifled under a government ran health care system. Would this not jeopardize the development of new procedures and technologies' I believe that government control would impact the quality of health care workers and would directly their income. This, as in other countries could cause our health workers to look for employment in other fields or move to other countries that are willing to pay their salaries and finance the development of new technologies. Discussion How can a government that cannot control their fiscal spending manage a health care system that America desperately needs' We do need an affordable health care system but government control over our choice of physician and treatment coverage based on fiscal reasons is the not the answer to America’s health care problems. The current system is expensive but it is still better than the government systems in Germany, Canada, and Sweden. Each of these countries has a higher tax base that is far more than what most Americans are willing to pay. The article fails to address catastrophic health issues and the financial impact that it would have on the government health care system. We need change and could start with small changes to see if it would reduce the cost. I believe that if the malpractice suits were limited to a set amount it would have a direct impact on the cost to the patient and a reduction in the premiums occurred by the doctors. I do agree that some doctors perform unnecessary tests and pass the cost off to the patient and the insurer but a check and balance could be put in place to prevent that from happening. The article points out that some doctors and insurance agencies gouge the systems and I do believe that is true but we need to regulate the costs associated with the administration, procedures, and test costs. However this was already tried with the introduction of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO’s) which allowed the insurer to selected the type of health care and procedures that was required but was mainly based on insurance premiums and was advertised by the both the government and insurance agencies as the cure to the American health care system. I believe that the current system is broke and does need to be reformed but we as Americans have the best system in the world and if that was not true than why does everyone who is sick come to the united states' In Boston, for example, there are multiple world class hospitals in one city alone, are we as American willing to give that up for state run hospitals. I do agree that people who are uninsured need a plan that is affordable and provides complete coverage at a reasonable cost but in my opinion anytime that the government has stepped in and assisted anyone it only shows a short term positive effect. As the bureaucracy grows with more staffing requirements, paperwork, and budget increases the cost is passed off to the tax payer. I have been in a German hospital and the cost was only 5 Euros a day but it came with a shared room 4 people to a room. I needed additional money to purchase water, toiletries, and was given generic medication. In order to get a private room, which is shared with another individual, I would have required supplemental insurance to offset the cost of quality care comparable to US standards.How can anyone to include the Government put a price on a person’s health. References Executive office of the president council of economic advisors (2009), The Economic case for health reform, http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf