Essay: The Government’s role in promoting and sustaining of health care in the United States

Health care is an essential sector in a country significantly affecting the nation’s economy. In this regard, implementation of various reforms on the health care system to offer affordable health care services has been evident among countries. The United States government is not an exemption. In fact, it has been implementing various health care measures for efficacy and effectiveness in services delivery to the inhabitants. The United States government spends more on healthcare than any other nation in the world yet ranks behind many developed countries on vital measures of health. The current health care in United States involves a complex patchwork of government provided Medicaid and Medicare for the poor and elderly as well as private insurance for most Americans (EDUCATIONAL NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER 1). In reality, the health care reforms debate has led to complex issues, for example, accessibility, coverage, accountability, quality and costs among others. Despite the complications involved in these reforms, the United States government should provide health care to the citizens.
Evidently, there have been various opinions on federal government responsibility for providing health care over the past several decades. Similarly, many groups including republicans, democrats and individuals continue to have diverse views on medical care. According to Roper Center (1) members of the public support for the government responsibility for health care continues to reduce. In fact, in 1938 78% of the Americans advocated for the government responsibility but in 2013 the number fell to 60%. The constant opposition against the newly implemented Affordable Care Act accounts for the reduced support where advocacy groups, as well as politicians, have been questioning its implementation. However, others view health care as a fundamental right that government should deliver. According to Garson and Engelhard (1) rights are social entitlements to fulfill a larger social purpose. Therefore, it is apparent that the government has an affirmative obligation to intervene and support the larger social good in the communities. Additionally, the rights of health care depend on social justice which preserves the ability to participate in economic and social life of the society.
Firstly, health care is a right and as a matter of social justice the government has the responsibility to make sure that Americans have the access to quality care and affordable coverage. Roper Center (3) claims that Statistics shows that between 1975 and 2012, 43% and 57% of all Americans agreed or strongly agreed with the view of government responsibility to help pay medical bills. Imperatively, the certainty of a right to health care has its foundation on two moral values namely utilitarian and social justice (Garson and Engelhard 2). Essentially, the social justice benefits the less privileged and underprivileged in the communities because it advocates keeping people near to normal functioning to allow them a fair share in the full participation in the society. Indeed, the government has the mandate to protect and ensure equality in provision of services irrespective of citizens’ social class. In addition, enhancing health care to all encourages people to participate in social, economic and political life in the society. Despite Non-Governmental Organizations efforts to cater for health care of the less privileged in the societies there are various limitations on the execution of their activities based on rules and regulations governing them. As a result, other illegible persons for the assistance remains unsuccessful to the programs making the government the most effective and efficient body to cater for health care needs to all. On the other hand, utilitarianism supports activities according to the balance of their positive and negative consequences mostly encouraging optimal positive value in the communities. According to Garson and Engelhard (2)combination of the two principles promotes the right to health care by creating entitlement to basic level of health services, enhance normal functioning and organize the delivery of health services through compulsory social insurance model with set limits to be affordable. Notably, setting these restrictions depends on resources to support the moral principles of social utility and social justice. Further, the settings require the United States government to employ explicit rationing as a vital step in providing a right to health care to all. Without doubt, government can effective provide health care to all while considering both positive and negative consequences of its activities. In this way, the United States government has the responsibility for health care provision.
Importantly, the United States government through its federal funding jump-starts innovations and inventions in healthcare services and products at critical moments where private funding is insufficient (Stribley, Egbuonu and Fritz 4). There has been technological advancement in the recent few decades which has significantly transformed various sectors including the healthcare service delivery. Federal incentives and funding plays a vital role in embracing of electronic medical records and quality reporting among the providers. Notably, health information technology cuts costs and improves care delivery in numerous ways, for instance, enhancing coordination across care settings, restructuring administrative processes and reducing complications in patient care among others. Additionally, through governments exertions there has been implementation of health information technology for economic and clinical health (HITECH) Act that speed up investment by the specialists. Further, the CMS innovation center renders its efforts towards addressing critical needs in the current health care system leading to strengthening of primary care delivery, as well as medical homes. Kathleen (5) argues that issues regarding health care do not always concern admission where a person has means and capability to pay for health care but rather involves circumstances where a person can afford to pay health care. In this regard, United States government stand out to be the suitable body to coordinate health care activities since through advanced technology, medical care, and insurance have become affordable even to the disadvantaged societies members.
Additionally, the government provided health insurance competes with private plans reducing cost and the number of uninsured Americans. Usually, private health care providers aim at maximizing profits because they are in business. Despite various laws and regulation governing their activities they always include a profit margin in their service delivery. Similarly, private insurance companies aim at increasing the numbers of customers mostly to acquire revenues. As a result, the plans are expensive and they remain restricted to the rich or middle-class individuals. In this regard, the poor remains uninsured owing to inadequate funds to access the plans. In efforts to address the needs of the poor citizens, various presidents in United States put forward numerous policies on health care. According to Roper Center (4) the increased support for an enlarged government role in health care in President George Bush’s reign laid a foundation for Obama administration passage of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, under this Act health insurance is affordable owing to subsidies to the poor. In return, there is a high rate of enrollment in the plan by the uninsured especially in Massachusetts where there is minimal opposition to the program. Indeed, low cost of the health care services and insurance has further led to private companies lowering their loyalties making it affordable for those interested in private insurance plans. Therefore, government responsibility for the health care remains inevitable in ensuring efficacy and proficient as well as reducing citizens’ exploitation by the private companies.
However, there exist critics on the government responsibility in health care delivery. Firstly, a public plan by the government has a competitive advantage that drives private plans out of business, consequently, leaving consumers with no choice. In essence, government -run plans set artificially low prices that private insurers have no way of competing with. Further, the government regulatory board inconsistently increases taxes on the private companies. In return, private companies’ rates escalate making them unaffordable forcing most of the firms out of the market. In this way, the citizens become restricted to government plans limiting their freedom towards their preferences and tastes. In addition, most of the government-run plans are always inefficient and broadens eligibility increasing the federal spending radically to over $ 1 trillion in the next ten years (EDUCATIONAL NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER (7). Inevitably, the government increases its taxes to cater for the health care costs leading to the reduction of the natives’ real wage. Therefore, the plan long-run benefits diminish owing to the reduction of people’s real incomes through increased taxes. On the other hand, government responsibility for health care confines efforts towards strengthening of public-private innovation partnership. Apparently, the remaining private companies in the market lack the incentives to partner with the government in innovations, as well as other developments.
Essentially, the critics are baseless and dispensable. Usually, people have their taste and preferences and they always go for their choice. The government responsibility in health care does not advocate for people to disregard private companies. Further, the aim of the government is to ensure equality in health care mostly aiming to benefits the poor. Additionally, there exists room for two insurance plans and some people especially the rich goes for the private companies’ plans. Evidently, the government always has well-described plans on how to raise the funds and does not necessarily rely on tax for its revenues. Governments also implement policies that put into considerations the private sectors as they remain an important source of revenue. Indeed, the government comes up with policies that allow public-private partnership in all fields not only in innovations.
It remains apparent that the federal government plays an essential role in promoting and sustaining of health care in the United States. Essentially, government enhances efficiency and effectiveness in health care delivery. In fact, stakeholders in both private and public sectors should work together to address the challenges of health care and seek opportunities to accelerate effectiveness and efficiency. Therefore, United States government should provide health care. Unfortunately, some stakeholders are profits oriented as well as political popularity.