Government Branches and Policy

Government Branches and Policy

            The three levels of government (federal, state, and local), play a critical role in collectively formulating universal healthcare policies. While the federal government mainly provides financial support and indirect support to states and overall the healthcare system, it plays a limited role in service delivery. Formulation of healthcare policies poses complex legal, social, and ethical issues. The goal of health policy is to promote and protect the health of individuals and communities. Officials in the various government branches can achieve this objective in ways that protect human rights.

An example of a healthcare issue under debate by the government is the provision of medical care for the poor. American Liberals are of the view that the health of the poor should be an obligation of the government. On the other hand, the American Medical Association insists that having such a policy would lead to socialism and endanger the relationship between patients and doctors. In the USA, there are no plans for socialized medicine or “panel doctor” that exist in most European countries (Sharpe, 2019). In theory, a more significant percentage of physicians are in private practice. Their financially stable patients pay large enough fees capable of covering the proportion of time that the physicians devote to free service among the poor (Chatwin, Arku & Cleave, 2019). The main problem with this scheme is that the poor are never assured that they will get quality service, or in some instances, any at all. Further, numerous people in the lower middle class earn sufficient incomes that can prevent them from relying on free service, yet they bear the financial burden of serious illnesses, a disaster from which it takes several years or decades to recover from.

Over the past few years, several schemes have come up that are on a border-line between private and public medical practice. There are public health facilities that undertake to give unlimited medical, nursing-home, and dental services upon the payment of a fixed figure per annum. These facilities retain their dentists, physicians, and other staff members on a fixed yearly salary (Kraft & Furlong, 2020). They may not engage in private practice and are required to take care of as many patients as possible. Such facilities have experienced tremendous support in many cities. Members of a cooperative, retain their own physicians at the end of the year and have unlimited right to consult him.

The American Medical Society has fiercely fought against such types of procedures. It has blatantly refused to allow its members to engage in such practices and has even expelled any member who defied their orders. Expulsion from the society is a serious issue since it brings into question the professional standing and competence of the physician (Chatwin, Arku & Cleave, 2019). Recently, The United States Department of Justice took action against the District of Columbia facet of the American Medical Association due to similar conduct. This conduct was described as a conspiracy to restrain trade.

Under the US federalist system, the governing of the health care system is allocated between federal and state governments. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands the coverage options for Americans, among other changes in the health care system (Sharpe, 2019). Though the federal government provides much of the funding for subsidized coverage and sets the platform for the regulation of the insurance market, state and local governments have the flexibility to implement the law. Currently, proposed healthcare reforms by the political right are aimed at giving greater responsibility to state and local governments (Kraft & Furlong, 2020). To review the balance between federal, state, and local governments regarding health care, Democrats and Republicans are coming up with proposals that alter the balance. Further, the two political sides are assessing policies that affect access to care and insurance coverage.

For decades, America’s medical and political leaders have promised to fix the health care system. Critics opine that nothing much has changed until now. In their view, over the years, healthcare been growing increasingly unaffordable and avoidable deaths keep wiping out thousands of patients each year (Chatwin, Arku & Cleave, 2019). Critics argue that universal health insurance may not necessarily lead to universal access to health services. In practice, the model rations care and leads to extremely long waiting lists for treatment. The system has not entirely been able to solve the seemingly irresistible and universal problem of the rising cost of health care.

However, the arguments fronted by critics against universal health are wrong. Universal health care is critical since it enables people and communities to access the services that they require without having to pay exorbitant prices. UHC also leads to more inclusive and faster growth for economies. It has a direct impact on the welfare and health of the population. Use and access of health services makes it possible for people to be more active and productive contributors to their communities and families. Thus, it is a critical component of poverty reduction and sustainable development. In addition to this, universal health care is the hallmark of the commitment of governments at all levels to improve the health of the people.

References

Chatwin, M., Arku, G., & Cleave, E. (2019). Defining subnational open government: does local context influence policy and practice?. Policy Sciences, 52(3), 451-479.

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2020). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Cq Press.

Sharpe, L. (2019). Policy implementation. and PolitiCs A Nurse’s Guide, 101.