CON In Michigan

The concept of providing basic healthcare services to individuals in need has undergone an agonizing transition, from a luxury once only afforded by the affluent to a basic human right granted to citizens of every economic station, and the recently enacted Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to finalize this ethical evolution. Reflecting perhaps the bitter political enmity currently consuming the nation's once cherished democratic process, Republican legislatures in states throughout the union have bristled at the ACA's primary provisions, threatening all manner of procedural protestation as they attempt to delay and derail the bill's eventual implementation. One of the most intriguing aspects of the sprawling, thousand page law, however, has been the stipulation that individual states will be given a choice to either accept federal funding to expand their statewide Medicaid roster, or to forfeit all federal funding for that program in perpetuity. The role of government in monitoring and regulating the healthcare industry has been long debated, and the bitterly contested passage of President Obama's ACA, a law aimed at revising the country's health insurance system through the creating of a federal health insurance exchange to facilitate increased competition among insurers, has rekindled the debate over who holds the ultimate responsibility for regulating the care provided by hospitals, community clinics, and private practices.

Leonard Peikoff believes that national healthcare is unethical and tramples on the individual “negative” rights of hard-working Americans. He makes a point of clearly defining what our “negative” rights are; they are our ‘unalienable, individual rights’ as Americans, in the context in which it was written in the Declaration of Independence, the right to “life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness”. According to Peikoff, “…all legitimate rights have one thing in common they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people.” (Peikoff 2); it is this right to action (pursuit) which Peikoff attributes to the success

Free markets which would allow patients more choices for health care coverage could also lower cost. Free market health care is a term used to define the choice a person has to buy insurance from anyone they please, regardless of state or employment . It is sold without government regulations, control, oversight or licensing. If you are paying for a service, shouldn’t you have the right to choose who you are purchasing that service from ? Why should government have a say in where and who you can buy your insurance from? In the State of North Carolina, we operate under a regulatory committee called the Certificate of Need (CON). According to the National Conference of State Legislature, the CON , is a program aimed at restraining health care facility cost and allowing coordinated planning of new services and construction. In North Carolina the state can’t dictate where you can build, what services you can offer and if they are valid. These services have already been researched by the organizations applying for the CON,

The US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, which are among the most widely collected, hence easily compared, international statistics. Many people are underinsured, for example, in Colorado "of those with insurance for a full year, 36.3% were underinsured."[6][7] About 10.7 million insured Americans spend more than a quarter of their annual paychecks on health care because of the high deductible polices.[8]

Recently, the federal government has crossed the line in regards to its actual power. In passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the federal government is essentially ignoring many vital sections of the Constitution that help keep it in check. These fundamental restrictions help prevent an abusive and tyrannical government. The fact that this law still remains in place today shows that these constitutional restrictions on the federal government no longer apply, and that the federal government essentially has unlimited power. This act is unconstitutional due to its violation of the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Origination Clause.

The first characteristic of the US health care system is that there is no central governing agency which allows for little integration and coordination. While the government has a great influence on the health care system, the system is mostly controlled through private hands. The system is financed publically and privately creating a variety of payments and delivery unlike centrally controlled healthcare systems in other developed countries. The US system is more complex and less manageable than centrally controlled health care systems, which makes it more expensive. The second characteristic of the US health care system is that it is technology driven and focuses on acute care. With more usage of high technology,

Results indicated a 25% decline growth rate of NP’s was slower in the most restrictive states

America is known for democracy, freedom, and the American Dream. American citizens have the right to free speech, free press, the right to bear arms, and the right to religious freedom to name a few. The Declaration of Independence states that American citizens have the rights including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America promises equality and freedom and the protection of their rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But with all the rights and freedoms that American citizens enjoy, there is one particular area where the United States seems to be lacking. That area is health care. The United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some form of legal

Health care in the United States is driven by a patchwork of services and financing. Americans access health care services in a variety of ways — from private physicians’ offices, to public hospitals, to safety-net providers. This diverse network of health care providers is supported by an equally diverse set of funding streams. The United States spends almost twice as much on health care as any other country, topping $2 trillion each year. (WHO.INT 2000) However, even with overall spending amounting to more than $7,400 per person, millions of individuals cannot access the health care services they need.(Foundation 2009) So when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a the Affordable Care Act or ACA) was passed in the summer

The health care system in the United States is one of the greatest concerns facing Americans today and is an issue both moral and economic in nature. Some think the system should stay, for all intents and purposes, the same. They believe that the right to healthcare is a stepping stone toward socialism, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain health care. These are usually the more ideologically conservative citizens and politicians who believe that medicine should remain a free enterprise, not to be constrained by government interference. Then there are those who believe that healthcare is a right, and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure it is available to all citizens, not just those who can afford

By doing this, the state can insure that competition between the healthcare providers is fostered and in doing so will lower prices for the consumer as well. It is also worth noting that by providing affordable healthcare, the company might also begin to get a bit of the 80 percent of those already insured in the state. The financial possibilities are endless in the state and is rich with financial growth and success for the company.

regarding the legitimacy of either arises – federal law trumps state law, as per the Constitution.

Everyone has their own views on what they think the United States healthcare system should consist of. Consequently, the healthcare system has been flawed for many years and does not plan to change anytime soon. According to Luft (2006), “rapid and wide-reaching technological innovation, the ready access to care for the insured, and clinical and patient autonomy” (p.1). These are some of the strengths the US healthcare system are proficient in providing. In contrast, the weaknesses of the healthcare system outweigh the system’s strengths. Luft (2006) examined and acknowledged the following:

Healthcare is a major topic that is constantly being brought up in the news. It is often discussed within categories such as economics, politics, and policy. The reason that is, is because of healthcare's crucial role integration as part of each of these things. With that said, the United States has received back and forth opinions on the healthcare services that it offers. Karl Polanyi defines embeddedness as a way in which economic activity is constrained societies set of institutions (Tuttle 2018). So this implies that there are two main elements that are 'embedded' into the American culture, individualism and capitalism. These two elements shape the way the healthcare system is set up. Capitalism

Acceptable healthcare is an inalienable right, unlike other countries in the world; the United States tends to differ when it comes to Americans inevitably being covered by health insurance. A key feature that makes the US extraordinarily different is the fact that the government does not control the delivery of healthcare as is done in other countries worldwide. Instead, Americans of the US can seek out various different sectors of healthcare offered by several different entities. With breakthroughs in medicine and technology, we as a nation and an industry must stay on the forefront of development to insure the inalienable right of heath care is never diminished. The objective of this paper is to discuss key characteristics and key external forces that have ensued changes to the delivery of healthcare in the US