Monday, April 14, 2008

Mediation Brief

Thesis: The United States Healthcare policy needs to be altered so that it can accommodate the citizens of this country that cannot financially afford healthcare, if their situation deems necessary. It does not need to allow for Universal Healthcare because it is not realistic to give ‘free’ healthcare to a country, when in reality someone has to be paying for it. A improved program, such as Medicaid, would be an appropriate solution for the situation to allow the less financially stable to be able to insure themselves and their families.Reason 1: There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. This is America: the land of oppurtunity! If people decide not to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer, than why should reap the benefits, such as health care, also? If a Universal Healthcare plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation. Universal health care, or socialized medicine, is not simply “free”, it is paid by the people’s tax money. That implies that people who have decent jobs will be paying for the insurance of people that do not have enough money to provide health care for themselves or for their families. There will also be a tax cut in things such as education and defense. In America everybody has an opportunity to have an education and to get a job that offers insurance, some people just choose not to take advantage of it. Also, if you look at Canada and Britains Universal Healthcare program, it is obvious that it is not a realitic solution to the healthcare problem. The Canadian Supreme Court has even admitted that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." In Britain, 20 percent of potentially curable lung cancer patients became terminally ill while on the waiting list (Source 1). Reason 2: It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology stated above; and some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain healthcare. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. Statistics show that a whopping 21% of the uninsured are below the age of eighteen (Source 2). There should be a form of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program, that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, doesn’t mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no healthcare. By allowing assistance for people when they are truly struggling or in a time of need only, it would allow a good approach to helping the general welfare of the United States, yet would be fair to those whom work and can afford healthcare. Yet, the Medicaid program needs improvement, so that these people can receive adequate care. For example, Swanson, a practitioner from Mesquite said: “If I accepted even 10% Medicaid, I would have to close my office. Pediatricians make very low margins. I am barely in business. ... It breaks my heart I can't treat Medicaid patients because I took care of them when I was a resident" (Source 3).' It is not the responsibility of doctors to accept a health care program that does not provide them the means of financial stability, but it is the responsibility of our government to provide a health care that will benefit the general welfare of the public. There are also many nonprofit organizations, such as St. Judes Hospital, who provide health care for situations where families cannot afford it. Reason 3: One of the biggest problems with healthcare in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve healthcare, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. An infant was turned down by its insurance for cerebral palsy rehabilitation because the skill of walking was not a previous learned skill (Source 4). Incidents such as this one are reasons why the government should step into the world of health insurance and make laws regulating their prices and their claims that they reject. This would allow for everyone that makes a reasonable income to be able to afford insurance and benefit from the health care that it is supposed to provide. This is a problem that the United States government should step into and make regulations about so that these companies cannot keep hurting the United States public. This would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.Conclusion: Overall, I think a Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over healthcare that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program or some other program that assists in helping people pay for healthcare that are unable to do so, should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens free healthcare will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the United States.Source: 1.http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.0925361173135385&bhcp=12.LAURA SHOULD HAVE THIS!3.http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3468447733&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3468447760&cisb=22_T3468447759&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8291&docNo=24.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/30/BUGOPQOIJT1.DTL

No comments: