The healthcare approach in the United States needs reformation. It is an obvious and deep problem, which seems to be still far from solutions. Furthermore, the government makes attempts to improve situation in healthcare, but in practice the practical results leave much to be desired. In this respect, programs which today are supposed to be a so-called “way out” in Medicare are not new. In most points they are grounded on the reforms made previously. Still the main misgivings of Americans are considered with the policy of taxation. The reason lies in the inappropriate attitude of government in the domain of medical insurance. Moreover, such approach of the government is emphasized with more market-like relations between healthcare system of the country and ordinary citizens. Weissert and Weissert (2006) illuminate this problem owing to different factors. Fears of people to feel the hardships of essentially difficult mechanisms promoted in the domain of Medicaid are considered to be the major. Thus, the paper estimates the idea of how the assertions made by Weissert and Weissert correspond to the current reform by the American government. Notwithstanding the change in government and Congress, Healthcare project still does not convince in its approach to all layers of people living in the United States.
First of all’, it is vital to point out the main details which Weissert and Weissert (2006) take into consideration while discussing the problem of healthcare services and their credibility for all layers of the society. Hence, the particular approach at the time when the book was published considered the issues related to the government of George Bush Jr. In this respect it is vital to admit that before him another president, Bill Clinton, also strived for making success in the domain of medical support for Americans. The whole idea of the reform was sound in Clinton’s time, but it had no grounds for that stratum of the society which is less prevented from the social problems. The significance of medical insurance was high, while people were not able to make an appointment with doctor and to achieve applicable medical help. This inhumane attitude of the government was amended several times. Today the administration of President Obama included the healthcare reform trend in the agenda for current year, but the process of improvements seems not to have been started yet.
The differentiation between two major parties in the US is rather distinctive in terms of hoe each of them treats the problem. Capitalization of everything in America should not touch upon the sphere of health protection and care. Weissert and Weissert (2006)note that “Americans inherently fear health services provided, authorized, or subsidized by government, sure that they will result in poor quality, long queues, and restricted access” (389)… This survey is not surprising looking at the process of healthcare development since the post-war times. Despair of people is detached also with the fact that many of them are intended to pay higher taxes, so that to support those who have no medical insurance (Weissert & Weissert, 2006). This makes the internal situation of the US still without definite steps toward the pathway of improvements.
Looking at the above represented points, it is too significant to describe the cruel reality provided by the government today. Poor people in the United States are doomed to have problems with health due to their helplessness, but the government asks for the insurance. Such relationships are inadequate and without any point of logic. According to the latest publishing of news about the proposal of Obama’s government to ‘move the healthcare program, the population according to the official polls differs in the ways which the President administration suggested. Balz and Cohen (2009) in The Washington Post published the results of the questionnaire about the healthcare reform. In this respect it was highlighted that the “public option” is about to succeed. However, the American society is expressly divided into those who in favor of the project and those who oppose to it: “Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of this question, while independents prefer a bill that includes a public option but does not have Republican support, by 52 percent to 35 percent” (Balz and Cohen, 2009).
It is not a new idea, that people in America still ashamed with the healthcare project being in a cleft stick. In fact, the problem is being deepened due to the controversies between the leaders in the Democratic Party. The representatives of the party are also divided into the proponents and opponents of the healthcare reform. In this approach the Republicans in the Congress solely because of opposite approach and political quarrels are intended to block the drive of the reform by perpetual discussions of it. This idea is distinctively expressed in the conclusions made by Weissert and Weissert (2006). Actually the situation leads only to the contradictions in the higher echelons of state power on the federal level. On the other hand, due to this the ordinary inhabitants throughout the world are suffering from having no response in having appropriate medical help.
Budget-busting burden of the government concerned with Medicare for the population includes the reliability of this program solely for the higher and middle class of the society. The “wars” in the higher domain of state power delay the process of healthcare project discussion. The last attempt to make the situation resolved is supposed with the official document, namely The America’s Healthy Future Act. In this significant document the social framework of its direct implementation is logically divided into several groups of people living in America. Moreover, the taxation program is believed to be reduced up to the year 2013:
In addition to the Medicare Commission, the other policy that contributes to this goal is the high cost insurance excise tax. Beginning in 2013, this provision would levy a non-deductible excise tax on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health insurance plan that is above the threshold of $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for family plans (The America’s Healthy Future Act, 2009, p. 21).
From the first sight, the points in the Act are budding due to the attempts to take into account all problematic areas about healthcare. On the other hand, the picture of its adoption seems quite inappropriate according to the current situation maintained among Americans. The bureaucratic machine works in its usual way: the government still promises high mountains instead of direct actions to improve real state of affairs. Weissert and Weissert predicted it in their straightforward assertion that “government seems to be moving toward a more market -oriented approach to health care policy, coupled with a desire to limit government’s financial liability for health care costs” (390).
Kirkpatrick (2009) in The New York Times comments on the step-by-step provision of the healthcare reform by Obama’s administration in terms of its harmful effect for the representatives of medical services in hospitals and clinics. In fact, doctors and hospital workers of different range became victims of the reformation process, because if the Federal financial support decreases, then it will reflect on medics’ incomes and on their wages, in particular. The bilateral character of the problem is emphasized with no practical decision. Still the employees in different fields are not aware whether the taxation policy will lessen in some few months at least or not. This approach seeks for rational collaboration of all authorities in the Congress and in the administration of President Obama, because, as the proverb says “delay is tantamount to death.” One may interpret this statement in the direct sense due to inactive and likely indifferent attitudinal background of the government.
Another point by Weissert and Weissert (2006) admits that the situation finds no way out due to the concernment of some groups of people in gaining particular benefits: “Many interest groups profit under the existing system, including healthcare providers, which are generally well paid” (390). This objective can be considered with a mere extent of assumption, but the reasoning to think so is quite grounded on political corruption in top dimension of relationships between people living in the United States.
To sum up, the process of healthcare reform provision is a great problem for the American society. The main factors for this are: high taxation for medical insurance, bureaucratic system of Medicare at places, probable hardships for the representatives of medical services due to wages decrease, and possible interests of some groups of people. All in all, while the Obama’s administration is seeking for the solution, ordinary Americans suffer.
Reference
Balz, D. & Cohen, J. (2009, October 20). ‘Public Option Gains Support’. The Washington Post.
Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2009, October 10). ‘Lobbyists Fight Last Big Plans to Cut Health Care Costs’. The New York Times.
The America’s Healthy Future Act. (2009). Web.
Weissert, W. G. & Weissert, GK. (2006). Governing health: the politics of health policy (3rd ed.). Baltimore: JHU Press.