The main area of concern that this analysis focused upon is: How will the government effectively cater to the medical and health needs of the uninsured? According to the statistics, the uninsured comprises of 23 million male, 20 million female, in which 21 million are white, 13 million are Hispanic, 7 million are black, and 2 million are Asian or Pacific Islander (Tunzi, 2004, p. 1357).
Given the number of policies by different states, the government, non- government organizations and the initiatives of the hospitals and other health facilities, could it be significantly deduced that such endeavors could be deemed as effective and or could be projected as having a long-term feasibility given the complex interplay of various determinants of the subsidy and care for the uninsured? The Evidences
The author have gathered evidences based on the following factors: first would be the nature and extent of the problem; second are the particular features of the policy for the uninsured and third are the assessments of the policies that gave been formulated by other individuals on a policy that is similar to such (Bardach, 2000, p. 8). The problem of the uninsured has been something that the government has been seeking to solution since the last century.
However it appears to be that the proposals from the time of Roosevelt all the way to Clinton all remained to be rarely enacted (Epstein, 2002, p. 532). The US Census Bureau in September 2003 documented that on 2002, 43. 6 million Americans did not possess any type of insurance which then marks a 2. 4 million increase from 2001. As such, it has been deduced that the sluggish economy and the budget deficits of the state and local government have mainly caused such a problem (Tunzi, 2004, p.
1357). Contrary to the notion that majority of the uninsured population came from the deeply marginalized, the US Census Bureau on 2002 revealed that 80% of these population came from working families. On such, 20 million of them are working full-time; 6 million have been working part time and 9 million of which having a family wherein at least one person is insured (Tunzi, 2004, p. 1357). If that is then the case, then how come these people don’t have any insurance?
Tunzi claimed that the primary reason of such is due to the fact that only two thirds of Americans are given insurance by their companies. In relation with this, 20% of uninsured individuals could not afford employer-based health coverage whenever such is presented. Corollary with this is that 50% of uninsured came from families that are under the 200% of the federal poverty level. These are families of four which are only earning $34,100 per annum (Tunzi, 2004, p. 1357). For the purpose of this policy analysis, the author focused on three major health insurances: Medicare, Medicaid and HMO.
The bill that was passed on 1960 which eventually legislated on 1965 paved the way for the establishment of the Medicare and the Medicaid. Medicare caters to the elderly which insured the hospitalization and other doctor services that are necessary; on the other hand, Medicaid emphasized on the needs of the marginalized and the disabled. The Medicare and the Medicaid resolved all conflicts between the hospitals and the government because of the assurance of monetary funds for those who are insured and the paying of services which are formerly given free or in a reduced fee.
However, critics of Medicare and Medicaid counter argued that such insurances are too costly; hence a new initiative was raised by a physician in Minnesota which is now known as the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) (Jost 1998, 107-108). The HMO required the consumers to pay a relatively small amount in order to cover for the former and also for his or her families. Such an idea appealed to the government, hence on 1973, the Health Organization Maintenance Act of 1973 was passed.
The managed health care proved to significantly reduce costs, and by 1995, it was estimated that 150 million Americans have their HMOs. However, conflicts between doctors and patients emerged when allegation such as doctors and HMO administrators have created some sort of incentive programs which would make the latter diminish its recommendations for certain medication, treatments, or operations. Such a case paved the way for a direct refusal for the needed medical care, treatment and operations.
In addition, complaints such as delays on the release of authorization and/or funds were also cited (Jost 1998, 109). In comparing the health care system of the United states to that of Canada, United Kingdom and Germany, numbers indicate that the former spent a relatively bigger budget as US spent about $,2354 per capita for healthcare as compared to $1,683 for Canada (Westerfield, 1993, p. 133). On the other hand, United Kingdom spent $836 per capita and Germany spent $1,232.
Corollary with this, the health care system of United Kingdom has been dubbed as the most centralized health care system among advanced industrial nations. It has been projected that the system has been practicing social utilitarianism wherein the physicians made the decisions in virtue of the general good, rather than those of the desires of the patient. As such, said: “Older patients may be advised against major surgery on the grounds that they have relatively few productive years remaining, and younger patients might receive a specific procedure on grounds of greater social utility” (p.
135). The state of affairs of the health care plan of Germany is closely tied with that of United Kingdom as every phase of health care of the country is being controlled and planned by the government. Germany has been implementing a flat tax on wages of 10% that is being shared by the employees and their respective companies which costs up to a certain maximum of $24 per month. In addition with this, substantial subsidies from general government revenues are also made available to the people (p. 136).