A Brief Note On Federal And State Programs

Healthcare system are employee sponsored insurance is not portable, overworked interns, residents, and nurses causing fatigue and burn out, and cost. Once an employee is no longer employed at an establishment he or she loses all health care benefits. This is such a disservice since the employee has paid into benefits and no longer has coverage (Goodman, 2016). Once the employee finds employee there is a period in which they are uninsured until benefits kick in. If anything happens during this time it is an out of pocket expense. Many healthcare workers are overworked causing fatigue and burn out. More staff could help relieve this problem. Lastly, the cost of healthcare is very expensive. In fact in the U.S. we pay more for healthcare than any other modern society. If we do not find solutions spiraling cost will bankrupt companies and force individuals to drop coverage, destroy long term viability of Medicare and Medicaid (Goodman,

These programs in state level would cater health service on basic levels to rural areas and also the urban areas. However, There must be the same rules and regulations for health care services across the state as well as the country and the access to minority groups to health care services must be fast and continuous in rate. The positives of state flexibility in health care certainly outweigh the negative in that some states have more growth than other states, therefore in these situations, the levels of health care may differ. As population and development grows in a state, the health care industry must grow, thus increasing the need for new technology. "Due to the needs of vulnerable populations and the requirements necessary to make health insurance coverage for them viable, these programs are quite different from standard private health insurance plans (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2013)." Private state insurance health care plans have the flexibility of choosing what groups they want to cover and what type coverage they will pay for. Medicaids concern for the needy is ethical and moral, illness or injury doesn't

During the activity, I chose federal budget cuts for domestic programs and foreign aid. I cut foreign aid in half. I do not think that America needs to help the world anymore. We have already helped out a lot and we should only help towards people that really need it, such as starving Africans, instead of funding wars overseas. I cut the pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent. People in the federal government get paid more and more every year while citizens of our country get paid a lower minimum wage than a lot of other places in the world. I cut 250,000 government contractors. There are more contractors than government officials, which means more money spent on a government that does not fully have the needs of the country in mind. In addition, I chose federal budget cuts for the military. I reduced the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013. We do not need the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore. The war is over. Let the country figure out what it needs to do by itself. We helped create the uprising there, so we can help diminish it by reducing troops. I also chose federal budget cuts for healthcare. I enacted medical malpractice reform. I think it is important that our doctors research as much as they can about a procedure or a medicine, so that they can provide the proper care for a patient and reduce the risk of getting sued.

What’s next? Some experts say that if the consumer-directed approach doesn’t succeed, em wash their hands of health care altogether. A recent study by the Employee Benefit Researc showed that the proportion of U.S. residents covered by employment-based health benefits d percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2004. Decades from now, observers may conclude that a counter- revolution in employer coverage began in these early years of the 21st century. —Terence F. Shea

In 1954, Congress passed legislation allowing employers to provide health insurance benefits to employees on a tax-free basis (Sih and Singh 99). This legal provision marked the beginning of the rapidly expanding health care costs still apparent today due to the major incentives provided by the government to obtain employer-based health coverage. The overwhelming popularity of employer-based health insurance has led to a serious market inefficiency resulting from the system of third-party payment. As individuals rely on their insurance companies to pay for their medical expenses, this provides

In 2013, nearly three million Americans missed work due to illness. That costs the United States economy an estimated $84 billion each year. Even though paid sick days are an enticing benefit, there are many downfalls to this proposal. This one-size-fits-all government mandate does not work for every employee.

Medical costs are getting too expensive. Ever fought with your insurance providers because they refused to pay for care, or struggle to find an “in-network” provider? I know a woman whose name I will change for her privacy and the struggles she is going through are a perfect example of an issue many people face when dealing with insurance; Nancy’s (name changed for privacy) story is a perfect example of how our healthcare system is no longer working for the people. Nancy is this woman whose husband recently passed away. Nancy used to work for county and county workers cannot receive social security; and Nancy is too

As a growing number of Americans find themselves without health insurance, it is demanded that the United States explore innovative policies aimed at extending coverage. The high cost of expanding coverage raises many questions about how best to improve access while preserving individual choice and maintaining quality of care. Differing viewpoints among policymakers, insurers, doctors, hospital administrators, employers, public health advocates, and health policy researchers provide a complete picture of the current and desired state of American healthcare.

This alternative includes restructuring federal Medicaid funding and making it easier for citizens to afford the health coverage that their employer provides.

America spends 2.5 times more on healthcare than most developed countries yet still ranking 51st in life expectancy in the world (Baum, 2015). The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented January 1, 2014 by President Obama to expand coverage to millions of individuals in need. It consists of two separate pieces of legislation: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Services, 2016). Although the ACA will give health benefits to millions of uninsured Americans, hospitals are receiving less compensation because of the high demand of health care from over qualified recipients. Through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and also the Social Security Act, states are able to pilot a test approach that could extend coverage up to 200 percent of the poverty line (Sommers, Kenney, & Epstein, 2015). Such a large increase in the size of the population that is now eligible to apply for the ACA comes with a sizable amount of fiscal responsibility from the states and puts an immense strain on the amount of money guaranteed to pay for the services provided (Sonier et al., 2013). Given the lack of funding from the Medicaid program, absence of reimbursement strategies, and budget of healthcare in America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP),

The Federal Healthcare Reform is currently using the already instated insurance system that the United States has and builds upon it to make it more accessible for everyone. The federal health care reform was intended for every legal citizen of the United States. The health care system has been in effect for just over a century and has shown its many different faces to the public. Since a formal health care system has not been around for very long, there are several alternatives that could be put in place in order to find the right fit for Americans. There are also some political constraints such as the backlash from the public that have made it hard to make

Universal public coverage reduces the need for work-related private drug insurance plans, which eliminates the need for the tax subsidies currently given to encourage employers to offer such plans (10). This could save the private sector approximately $8.1 billion (10). This relieves employers the responsibility for workers’ health care costs, and reduces disputes and strikes between employees in negotiating plans. With increased access to prescription drugs, there may be reduced instances of ED visits, thus, allowing more government spending on other resources in the long-term

The Massachusetts model is considered by many to be the blueprint for the national health care reform. It was introduced in the year 2006 and was fully implemented by 2010. The state previously had a “free care” pool through which it funded the health care given to people who were uninsured and ineligible for Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurance. The then federal government insisted that either the state reduced this funding or it lost $385 million in Medicare funds (Lizza, 2011, June 6). The uninsured population in the state at that time was 10.9%, which was much less than the national average of 15.8% (Day & Nardin, 2011) making the state relatively more suitable for any health

As discussed in lecture (Paterniti, 2009) and in Oberlander’s analysis of the U.S. health care system, “any reform that threatens to alter the medical care arrangements of the insured is likely to provoke public opposition” (2003). Most likely, the insured are well off financially and/or politically powerful. These people, who are for the most part content with their current health insurance, would oppose

There is no denying the fact that the cost of health care in the United States has been on a constant rise than the wage of the employees that pay to have access to better healthcare. There is the general fear among these employees that if the rising cost of the health care is not brought under control, there will come a time, and some analyst think, the time is already here, when those employees will not be able to afford health care for themselves and their families. This fear of the unknown is particularly evident among those closer to retirement. Employers of labor have for quite sometimes now, been shifting the burden of the high cost of affordable health care to their employees, and that has significantly reduced employee standard of