NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Should Health Care for the Elderly be Limited Recently the issue of the health care for the elderly has been raised quite many times. Health care patterns are a very vital thing in developing a good and healthy society and thus it should not be limited for any particular group of people. For decades, the American system of health care has relied primarily on employer-sponsored insurance programs as a gateway through which individuals access health care services. Gaps have been filled in through public insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and other more locally-based programs to cover elderly, disabled and certain low income populations who cannot access the employer-based market. In addition, the government (federal, state and local) provides certain limited subsidies (e. g. , tax deductions for the self-employed) for individuals to purchase insurance policies in the private market on their own.
While this system has worked effectively for many Americans, it has left behind a significant number approximately 42 million who lack any form of health insurance coverage. For these individuals, the country has developed an institutional health care safety net to ensure that they nevertheless receive access to needed care. This institutional safety net is comprised of the many hospitals, clinics and individual providers who serve all who seek their care without regard to ability to pay. Most of these providers receive some support for the uncompensated care they provide through various public programs (on the federal, state and local levels). America has long relied on this two-tiered approach to addressing the problem of the uninsured: expanding access to insurance coverage while providing financial support to safety net providers serving the uninsured.
Some policymakers prefer to emphasize coverage over institutional support for providers; others might tip the balance in the other direction. But the two strategies are inexorably linked: if we do not expand insurance coverage we will need a strong system of safety net providers to serve the higher number of uninsured; conversely, if we do not adequately support safety net providers we will need to ensure that individuals can get care on the private market meaning they will need coverage. NAPH supports strong public policy in both arenas. I think that all individuals should have access to health insurance coverage.
Universal coverage is and should be the ultimate goal of health policy in this area. However, even under a system of universal coverage there will always be individuals who, for whatever reasons, fall through the cracks and remain uninsured. For these people, it is imperative that a strong and viable system of safety net providers be available to ensure that care is provided even for those without the means to pay. For America as it enters the twenty-first century, these realities mean that we should be expanding coverage even if incrementally however and wherever we can. And we should be providing financial and other support for our safety net providers so that they may continue to meet the needs of the uninsured. Expansion of coverage and preservation of the safety net these are the dual goals of NAPH policy on the uninsured.
Medicare program introduced in 1965 was designed to create a better place for American people to live. Concerning medicine, it was difficult for many elderly citizens to pay health care costs after retirement. Johnson would abruptly push through the Medicare Act, which would provide the elderly with health insurance to cover and hospital costs. Medicare only applied to the elderly and disabled, leaving many poor people without health coverage. So, its counterpart, Medicaid was passed by Congress so the poor who were not elderly were not left out.
Medicare was an initial success, resulting in many healthy and still financially secure senor citizens. 30 years later, Medicare still exists, with a few changes made necessary by time and progress. The Medicare program has made significant changes socially, politically, and especially economically, and vice versa. Even as we speak, the U. S. government is trying to improve and preserve this critical program, and hopefully will continue to do so in the future. Although the elderly are the main beneficiaries for Medicare, just about everyone in society is affected one way or another.
Anyone who earns a paycheck is aware of the fact that a small percentage is taken by the government for programs like Medicare and Social Security. Is it fair for the elderly to receive free or reduced health care at the expense of other workers income? Well, theoretically, you put in your own money throughout your life which will come back to you after you retire, providing medical coverage. So one would give now, and receive later. In that aspect it sounds like a fair deal. However, with all of the medical advancements and a growing concern for personal health nowadays, more and more people are living longer and longer.
Also, the huge Baby Boom generation is approaching retirement, which won't help matters any. This results in them draining the Medicare funds for a longer amount of time, which is a current dilemma now. The public would undoubtedly frown upon an additional amount of money taken away from them for a service they don't use, and possibly never will use. But the elderly are not the only group of people who enjoy Medicare. Physicians are the ones who get a large chunk of the Medicare funds. They know that older people wont hesitate to visit the doctor if its courtesy of the government.
A greater number of patients lead to more money for them. If the elderly had to pay their own way medically, physicians would probably see a distinct drop in older patients. So retired and disabled persons and physicians are two of the groups in society that heavily favor the idea of Medicare. Medicare has also received a lot of attention politically over the past decade or so. Congress tries to make reforms to the current program often, and there are a lot of disputes about when and what to reform. Earlier in 1998, President Clinton proposed a plan that would allow 62 - 64 year olds to buy into the Medicare program by paying a monthly premium.
Another option suggested was to allow persons 55 years or older to have access to medical coverage if they involuntary become unemployed. His overall goal is to increase the coverage for middle-aged Americans as well. This is an issue of access. Were not solving all the financing problems of the health care system, stated Donna Shall, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It isnt an unusual occurrence in Washington however, to have Congress and the White House see things differently. Medicare is intended for the elderly people in society.
Problems arise with the increased life expectancy of 78 years of age. People are living longer and are in need of more medical care. Medicaid is aimed at providing help and support for those individuals who can not afford the proper care needed. Individuals need to qualify for such advantages of Medicaid. With the increase number of needy people in society the medical assistance becomes limited. This is a disadvantage to people who require special attention and needs.
America is now the only country that does not offer national healthcare. Although it would be unrealistic to assume that the American public will some day wish to treat health care like other inherent rights, such as education or police protection, there is a general agreement that some basic array of health care services should be available to all US citizens (Suite 13). The government has made several cuts to the healthcare system over the past few years. US Congress has cut 23 billion dollars a year out of the Medicare system over the next five years. Congress is now calling for a new vote to restore much of what was taken out of the healthcare system. Citizens are being denied lifesaving treatment because the government fails to reimburse medical caregivers.
In the United States over 40 million Americans are on the Medicare health system, most being elderly citizens. There are several organizations that deal with the American health issue. The Healthcare Financing Agency (HCFA) oversees government disbursement to specialized nursing home facilities. Nursing homes are losing money on uncollected payments from citizens that cannot afford the expensive treatment that nursing homes require. They are by law not able to turn down any patients due to their financial situation or method of payments. There is a possibility of legal issues if they were to turn away a patient seeking care.
Some of the largest nursing homes chains have gone out of business all together. Over ten health care agencies have gone out of business since January of 1999 in the state of Massachusetts alone. The government spends $ 300 per day on an individual in a nursing home. Out of that payment hourly wages need to be paid to caregivers, food, shelter, medication, and transportation from medical facilities. This is a minimum dollar amount that seems insufficient for proper care to be administered. Senate and the House have both passed such standards that many healthcare givers feel is inadequate for proper treatment.
Different states have different rules. In Pennsylvania, a hospital that treats a Medicaid client receives in reimbursement approximately 79 percent of the cost of care. In New Jersey, however, a similarly situated hospital receives from Medicaid 105 percent of the cost of care (Sparer 9). There are many healthcare providers that deal with HMO coverage, Health Maintenance Organizations. The National Bipartisan Commission for the Future of Medicare recommends the possible solution could be that all participates will be issued by HMOs.
HMO treatment is a controversial issue that many people feel limits the care they receive. The HMO pays doctors and hospitals a set amount every month regardless of how many patients from the HMO end up utilizing care (Cromer 12). HMO limits the number to caregivers that a person is allowed to receive treatment from. Doctors are opposed to recent HMO coverage because of the limitations that it puts on them. Many people are declining to enter into the medical field because of the lack of money they are able to obtain. Elderly especially are concerned with the HMO coverage they receive.
As the baby boomers are entering into their later years of life, they are encountering more and more medical problems. The concern is they can not seek the proper services due to the restrictions that these organizations put into place. Another possible idea for a solution is increasing the FICA tax paid by all taxpayers. Every income collector and employer is required to pay FICA tax. Increasing this amount could raise 2. 8 million dollars added to the healthcare programs. The progress of American Healthcare has developed substantially in the United States over the century.
Developments have progressed through the 21 st century stemming from the year 1912. Many people came to this country for many different reasons. The general consensus is that people came here for a better way of life. The country is so successful in so many aspects of society to make this the best country to live in. If the country wishes to maintain its high quality reputation, changes and reforms need to exist and take place to help the average person receive the best quality and care that they came looking for when coming into our country. Many...
Free research essays on topics related to: group of people, people in society, state and local, health care services, safety net
Research essay sample on Health Care Services People In Society
