Expanding And Improving The Healthcare System

The beginning of the article started off very strong with the Republican views on how replacing theAffordable Care Act/ Obamacare seems to be beneficial because Americans believe that the government needs to provide healthcare for all which is “Medicare for all.” Throughout government; the left and right sides do not see eye to eye but in this discussion, they both seem to acknowledge the likelihood of this new system.

Since its establishment in 1965 we have seen Medicare change as people’s needs change however being a federal program these changes do have an incredible amount of lag time. One of the first major changes to Medicare occurred in 1972 when President Nixon signed the Social Security Amendments of 1972 which extended coverage to individuals under age 65 with long-term disabilities, expanded benefits to include some chiropractic services and speech and physical therapy. During this time we see the American public growing tired of the Vietnam Conflict and lack of support and care for those returning Marines and soldiers with severe disabilities. As the protests escalate and the peace initiatives fail a key piece of legislation is signed showing government support and a willingness to extend health care benefits to this growing and vocal population of veterans (The Vietnam War, 1999). Also included in this Amendment is the encouragement of the use of Health Maintenance Organizations, President Nixon’s administration caught in the scandal of Watergate and pending hearings appeased the left and proposed the HMO Act, which Congress passed in 1973 (Phillips, 2003).

The Medicare program is being perceived that it will go bankrupt in about 10 years unless there is major reform. There are six recommendations that should be reformed for the protection of the program for future generations. The program must protect retirees from an economic healthcare disaster. The cost of the program must be shared and this will motivate benefactors to reduce cost by adding accountability to the program. Reducing Medicare expenditures will have a much larger impact than increasing taxes. Calculating the retirement age in correlation to life

Over the past two years, I have been working as an ACA Patient Advocate at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). Throughout the course of the week, I interact with patients who are affected by age associated illnesses. At this community health center which serves a large, and indigenous uninsured population, my specific role as a patient advocate is to intervene, assist, manage and fight for my clients. I also provide assistance in interpreting and clarifying healthcare coverage. Lastly, I encourage my patients to engage in frenetic participation in the overall health insurance enrollment process. In so doing, I am ensuring that the health care needs of the public are met.

Many proposals to reorganize Medicare could increase the financial and health risks faced by the vulnerable elderly. Turning Medicare into a premium-support system a voucher set randomly at the value of the second-least-expensive insurance plan could shift costs to elderly households. Increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 will leave many Americans ages 65 and 66 without insurance. The basic idea of part A Medicare payment is simple. The patient pays a deductible that approximately equal to the cost of the first day in the hospital;

The latest health care reform has done what few policies manage to do – sicken both republicans and progressive democrats. While we can all agree that a reform of the health care system is sorely needed, we must also acknowledge that “Obamacare” is not the cure-all we so desperately require. Rather, President Obama, like a medieval barber, prescribed a health care reform that treated the symptoms of our flawed system rather than the actual disease. The subsidization of health insurance providers has proven ineffective at providing affordable coverage for all. Certainly one is likely to hear the various incendiary talking points of both the proponents and opponents. Whether it’s the republican candidates blaspheming Obamacare as socialism, or the administration praising the success of health care for all, it is difficult to actually find constructive dialogue. We are purview to many sound bites, but few actual solutions. We have witnessed heated debates, but rarely do we witness intelligent discourse. If beneficial reform is to be crafted and implemented, we must first acknowledge the issues and inconsistencies of the current system and begin to explore alternate methods of providing health care to the American people.

While campaigning for the 2016 presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed that America should adopt a single-payer health care system. In Sanders’s plan, there would have been only one insurance program that would have covered everyone in the United States; in effect, other programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and especially private insurance would be discontinued (Holahan, 2016, p. 1). If Sanders’s proposal were to be carried out, it would be a drastic change from the current system which predominately comprises of private insurance and hospitals under limited government regulations. The debate reopened on whether or not a single-payer system would be an effective system health care system or economically viable. Due to the contrasting nature of current health care system in the United States, policymakers should approach proposals of single-payer health care systems with caution and an understanding of the benefits and the drawbacks by examining the successes and failures of real-world systems.

This article discusses the progress of the ACA as it enters its sixth year. Jost begins the article by first discussing the success of the act, which include a historical drop in the number uninsured, high levels of satisfaction and a slower growth in health care costs compared to previous years. The paper further discusses how the ACA will roll out in the 2016 year. Individuals and large companies will be taxed for failing to gain and provide access to adequate health insurance. One great idea that Jost poses to increase affordability and access of health care was to make the Marketplace more transparent so that individuals can have a better grasp of provider and drug coverage before they apply. Under the ACA there was also a great push to expand Medicare and Medicaid programs through increasing access and coverage. Although this part of the ACA seemed like a great idea as it provided coverage to more individuals, I wonder how this program and the ACA in general will pan out after the election. The ACA will likely see some changes in the near future. Republican proposals to replace the ACA, which I feel are scarce to being with, might remove the community rating, which will reduce the number of people insured, although ultimately leading to a decrease health care expenditure. On the other hand, Democrats will likely expand the ACA and may also offer additional funding for the program with additional

The future of healthcare resides in a single-payer system. Our country already has roughly fifty years of experience in this area under the Medicare program. By extending Medicare to all citizens we could ensure that all have the health coverage they need and that “everyone would make a financial contribution to Medicare for All” (Seidman, 2015). A single-payer system would also give the government the necessary leverage to negotiate better prices for care and prescription

U.S. health care reform is currently one of the most heavily discussed topics in health discourse and politics. After former President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care reform in the mid-1990s, the Bush administration showed no serious efforts at achieving universal health coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans. With Barack Obama as the current U.S. President, health care reform is once again a top priority. President Obama has made a promise to “provide affordable, comprehensive, and portable health coverage for all Americans…” by the end of his first term (Barackobama.com). The heated debate between the two major political parties over health care reform revolves around how to pay for it and more importantly, whether it

“We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on. And we will do it this year.” The preceding is a powerful statement from the newly elected President Barak Obama. One of the main aspects of both political campaigns was health care reform. The above quote shows passion and encouragement, but the quotes about health care do not end there. Georgian republican gubernatorial candidate and health care policy maker John Oxendine expressed: “Their proposal would virtually devastate the private healthcare sector in this country along with competition and patient choice, by replacing it with bureaucratic planning and government control. The result of this plan and its one trillion

The purpose of this essay is to discuss Medicare Part D, as well as the influence of the various interest groups and governmental entities during this process. This essay will discuss both the policy process and the policy environment (the key players involved and other circumstances that shaped this policy-making effort), how stakeholder groups influenced the final outcome of Medicare Part D legislation, the specific strategies and tools that were used most effectively, and if the fact that Medicare Part D passed corresponds with my understanding of policy and politics.

Due to the upcoming presidential election, the two major political parties, and their candidates, have been focusing on the primary problems that the nation will face. Chief among those problems is the future of Medicare, the national health-insurance plan. Medicare was enacted in 1965, under the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, in order to provide health insurance for retired citizens and the disabled (Ryan). The Medicare program covers most people aged 65 or older, as well as handicapped people who enroll in the program, and consists of two health plans: a hospital insurance plan (part A) and a medical insurance plan (part B) (Marmor 22). Before Medicare, many Americans didn't have health

Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.

The growing concern regarding the financial security of Medicare is one of particular interest to the nearly 72 million baby boomers that become eligible for this government-assisted, and tax-payer bolstered, program over the next two decades. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), there will be a rapid increase in baby-boomers between 2010 and 2030, as the entire baby boomer population move into the 65 years and over category (p.3). Political and financial revisions must be made to ensure the security of Medicare as the numbers of individuals paying into this program are soon to be surpassed by the number of individuals drawing-off this program (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The elderly are also at a disadvantage with transportation to health care visits, picking up prescriptions, and rehabilitation services. There needs to be an establishment of access not only to primary care providers, hospitals, and rehabilitation services, but access to other aspects of the health care system for the elderly population.