Kenneth Arrow's Theory Of Demand For Health Care

Is the US Healthcare system truly reflective of a free market economy driven by supply and demand? Initially, one would be inclined to think yes. In an ideal world, a free market is one which is driven by individual innovation and the concept that hard-work and ingenuity will be bestowed with success. Indeed, the biggest advantage of a free market is that it places the power of choice into the hands of the people. There is freedom to choose how you want to spend your money, what you want to spend it on, and whom you want to spend it on. Do you want to see a physician regarding a yearly physical? Open the yellow pages. You will more than likely find over 100 general practitioners in your immediate area to choose from. Do you want to spend your money on preventative care, early screenings, vaccinations, etc? Or do you want to spend your money on medications after you are diagnosed with an ailment? The main idea behind a free market is that prices will regulate themselves. In regards to the US Healthcare system, it is questions like

Health care spending in the United States of America as a percentage of the economy has reached astonishing heights, equating to 17.7 percent. This number is shocking when compared to other counties; in Australia health care is 8.9 percent, in United Kingdom 9.4 percent, in Canada 11.2 percent. If the American health care system were to hypothetically become its own economy, it would be the fifth-largest in the world. While these statistics sound troubling, they lead us to look for answers about the problems surrounding our system. The first health insurance company was created in the 1930s to give all American families an equal opportunity for hospital care and eventually led to a nationwide economic and social controversy that erupted in the 1990s and continued to be shaped by the government, insurance companies, doctors, and American citizens. In this paper, I will go in to detail about the various opinions regarding the controversy, the history behind health insurance companies, and the main dilemmas brought out by the health care crisis. Greedy insurance companies combined with high costs of doctor visits and pharmaceutical drugs or the inefficient hospitals all over America can only describe the beginning to this in depth crisis. Recently, the United States health care industry has become know for the outrageous costs of insurance models, developments of various social and health services programs, and the frequent changes in medicinal technology.

Throughout the history of the United States, the economics of the health care system has experienced many changes. There are many factors to consider that has been the drive behind many of the changes within the health care system. Medical and surgical technologies are some factors that relate to the changes in health care. Besides these factors, allocating sources to fund health care services has always been the most critical factor. One might consider the economic term supply and demand when looking at the history of health care economics and the primary funding source. Health care funding

The availability of healthcare is an extremely important issue in the United States. There are millions of Americans that are uninsured in the U.S. A high amount of uninsured people are from minority groups such as Hispanics and African-Americans. High deductible payments, the cost of prescription drugs, and lack of health insurance coverage cause many Americans to choose to live without insurance to save money for everyday expenses beside healthcare. Without health insurance, people do not have access to quality healthcare. Most citizens are aware of the issues in the healthcare system, but the disagreement comes when discussing how the best approach on ameliorating the system. Some believe that a more public and universal healthcare system is the best approach. Others believe that America works best through free enterprise and private institutions, and believe health insurance should be more privatized. However, health care has been shown to work best and be more available through proper public government control as it will allow for all Americans to have access to equal healthcare, in which money does not dictate health.

This paper will look at the impact of Affordable Care Act on supply and demand in healthcare. The goal is to show if there is equilibrium of supply and demand since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. This has been done by looking at a variety of articles such as The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on the Health Care Workforce. The Affordable Care Act has created provisions to address some of the supply shortages. Through the provision it will take time for the full effects to come to light. This paper will provide valuable information regarding the Affordable Care Act impact on supply and demand.

One of the issues is the increasing cost of healthcare which is dominating the health policy in U.S. this is accompanied by an increase in spending on healthcare. According to projections by the government, the spending on medical care will continue to rise. U.S spends more money on health care than any other nation globally (Holtz, 2013). The increase in the spending is as a result of improved tools for disease diagnosis, better surgical interventions among others. This raises an issue for the policy makers on the maximum GDP percentage that a country has to spend on healthcare, and whether the nation will afford the cost that is continually growing. In contemplating any change in the health policy, policy makers should consider the cost of the healthcare and the ability of the nation to support that high cost.

This paper will include: the current health care expenditures whether spending is too much or not enough, where the nation should add or cut, how the public’s health care needs are paid and provide a forecast for: the future economic needs, why these needs must be addressed, how I envision these needs will be financed and conclusion.

In the past what has hindered health care reform plans from being enacted were the issues surrounding how they were to be funded. When comparing the attempts of the Clinton administration, the current legislation developed by both the House and the Senate, and Britain’s National Health Service, it is in my opinion that my optimal health care reform plan be funded through taxes, cost-sharing, and fees. In order for this plan to be successful it must be economically feasible and be able to reduce overall health care costs.

In recent years, health care has been a huge topic in public debates, legislations, and even in deciding who will become the next president. There have been many acts, legislations, and debates on what the country has to do in regards to health care. According to University of Phoenix Read Me First HCS/235 (n.d.), “How health care is financed influences access to health care, how health care is delivered, the quality of health care provided, and its cost”.

An issue that is widely discussed and debated concerning the United States’ economy is our health care system. The health care system in the United States is not public, meaning that the states does not offer free or affordable health care service. In Canada, France and Great Britain, for example, the government funds health care through taxes. The United States, on the other hand, opted for another direction and passed the burden of health care spending on individual consumers as well as employers and insurers. In July 2006, the issue was transparency: should the American people know the price of the health care service they use and the results doctors and hospitals achieve? The Wall Street Journal article revealed that “U.S. hospitals,

One of the issues that is widely discussed and debated concerning the United States economy is the healthcare system. Unlike in the majority of developed and developing countries, the healthcare system in the United States is not public, meaning that the state does not provide free or cheap healthcare services. This paper addresses many of the factors contributing to the rising cost of healthcare.

This study will argue in support of universal healthcare as a financial and healthcare-based initiative in the Unite States. The overarching problem of healthcare in the U.S. is based on the high costs of treatment and insurance company profiteering, which can be controlled through government regulation and price caps on medical costs for the American citizen. Currently, the private healthcare industry is an unregulated “free market” system that does not control the cost of healthcare pricing, which could be regulated by government caps on medical supplies, physician services, and healthcare services. In Canada, for instance, the cost of medical supplies and physician services are limited by the government, which prevents insurance companies and doctors from raising prices for profits. The U.S. could easily apply his method to healthcare services as the

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.

US health care expenditures have been rising quickly over the past few years; it has risen more than the national financial system. Nonetheless a number of citizens in the US still lack appropriate health care. If the truth be told, health care expenditures are going to continue to increase; in addition numerous individuals will possibly have to make difficult choices pertaining to their health care. Our health system has grave problems that require reform, through reforming, there is optimism that there will be an increase in affordable health care and high-quality of care for America. Medicaid, Medicare and private sector insurances are all going through trials and tribulations because of

Changing factors such as aging populations and new technologies becoming available are increasing expectations from people throughout the world, and decision makers must make rational choices to maximise benefits to population health whilst working with limited resources. Yothasamut et al (2009) summarise this by observing that "health care resources in every setting are always constrained, while unlimited demand is observed". The 'best' choices in the context of economics are the ones which maximise utility (individual satisfaction through consumption of goods) and welfare, the sum utility experienced by all individuals in society. Decision makers often have to seek satisfactory rather than optimal solutions, also known as working with 'bounded rationality' (Simon 1957 in Williams et al 2008), as it is important to pursue both efficiency and equity in the funding of health care. Therefore, it may be unsuitable to fund the most cost effective option if it sacrifices the equal distribution of benefits. Research in health economics can take a normative or positive approach and this reflects the balance needed between cost control and equity when making economic decisions. Positive economic research and analysis is concerned with 'how things are' and seeks to explain economic phenomena, whilst normative economic research and analysis is concerned with 'how things ought to be' and relies on value