Regulation of the medical field is the factor that constantly creates problems for any country: authoritarian and democratic, capitalist and socialist. The existence and absence of a positive duty of government to guarantee medical care has its supporters and opponents in all political systems. Developed European countries are examples of high-quality free medical care, and the financing of this area is associated with a high level of taxation. Consequently, it is difficult to indicate which approach to the health care system is more desirable for citizens, but I believe that steps must be taken to provide medical care for minorities and low-income families.
Although the president and Congress make decisions about reforming the healthcare system, proposals for such reforms come from advisers and legislative commissions of competent professionals, including experienced doctors or representatives of the administration of medical institutions. A full forecast of the reform implementation process and its results is impossible. Therefore, the authorized persons must be ready to respond to the emergence of new challenges under the instructions of qualified experts. I have confidence in these medical system control processes since the President and Congress base their decisions on factual information.
Medical care is quite affordable in the US for the middle and wealthy classes, but people with low incomes also have the opportunity to receive such services. Providing medical care is necessary to improve the standard of living, and its payment is a secondary factor. Even though debts for provided services may be written off or reimbursed by the government, the most crucial factor is ensuring access to medical treatment. Views on existing medical coverage depend on those life circumstances that influenced the formation of a particular person. Due to the cost of insurance, the middle and upper classes will prefer to use the current healthcare system, while the lower class people and people of color will call for change. The level of medical coverage is excellent due to its quality and general affordability for the majority.
Each area in a particular state should be reformated while considering the law’s unique characteristics and the conditions for adopting specific reforms. The ruling party switches with each election, causing no obvious and steady process of transforming certain areas. Therefore, accepting a comprehensive package of reforms is feasible, but the implementation of amendments is spread over a long period and is subject to cancellation by opposing forces. Thus, it is impossible to solve the medical issue alone, which points to the necessity of implementing the reform through gradual, ongoing improvements.
Cost-sharing for medical bills is contentious, and transferring the entire cost to specific individuals is discrimination. However, since the rich citizens have the means to do so, they must conceal the funding sources for the medical industry. Coercion to perform such requirements is inappropriate. Therefore, philanthropy in the medical field can be rewarded with a newly introduced presidential order for national recognition of such deeds.
Obama was the first president to initiate a legislative change to the healthcare delivery process. The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) insurance expansions and market improvements have resulted in major benefits, including fewer financial barriers to insurance, improved access to healthcare, and decreased financial costs (Glied et al., 2020). The ACA’s scope has been constrained by later judicial rulings and acts taken by Congress and the executive administration. In 2010, when ACA was enacted, 48.6 million people reported not having insurance (Glied et al., 2020). The same study from 2017 revealed that 29.3 million Americans were dispossessed of health insurance (Glied et al., 2020). Obamacare was a successful law, but its implementation might be far more effective if its requirements were adopted as the standard for all activities by the government’s three parts. The greatest action for American society would be to update this statute through increased medical expense coverage for minorities and people of color rather than repeal it and bring back the issues it partially resolved. The excellent improvements caused by this law in medical services, supported by statistical data, indicate that additional legislation and abolishing already-existing guarantees are needed to protect American citizens’ rights.
Reference
Glied, S. A., Collins, S. R., & Lin, S. (2020). Did the ACA lower Americans’ financial barriers to health care? A review of evidence to determine whether the Affordable Care Act was effective in lowering cost barriers to health insurance coverage and health care. Health Affairs, 39(3), 379-386. Web.