Why are Americans so worked up about health care reform? Statements such as “don’t touch my Medicare” or “everyone should have access to state of the art health care irrespective of cost” are in my cardioxyl opinie opinion ignorant and visceral side effects that indicate a bad understanding of our health and wellness care anatomy’s history, its current and future resources and the funding challenges that America faces going forward. While we all wonder how the health care system has reached what some refer to as a crisis stage. Let’s try to take some of the going through out of the debate by in the short term examining how health care in this country emerged and how that has formed our thinking and culture about health care. With that as a foundation let’s look at the pros and cons of the National government health care reform proposals and let’s look at the concepts supply by the Republicans?
Access to state of the art health care services is something we can all agree would be a a valuable thing for this country. Experiencing a serious illness is one of life’s major challenges and to face it without the means to pay for it is positively frightening. But as we will, no doubt see, if we know information, we will find that achieving this goal will not be easy without our individual contribution.
These are the themes I will touch on to attempt to make some sense out of what is happening to American health care and the steps we can personally take to make things better.
The latest history of American health care : what has driven the costs so high?
Key elements of the Obama health care plan
The Republican view of health care : free market competition
Universal access to state of the art health care : a worthy goal but not easy to achieve
exactly what do we do?
First, let’s get a little historical perspective on American health care. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What owned costs higher and higher?
To begin, let’s turn to the American city war. In that war, old tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern tools of the era combined to cause awful results. Not generally known is that most of the demise on both sides of these war are not the result of actual combat but the particular happened looking for a battlefield injure was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail’s pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to injure care, related operations and/or amputations of the affected hands or legs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. That serves to survive a battle injure just to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be attributed to everyday illnesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total similar to 600, 000 demise occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U. S. population at the time!
Let’s skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to newer times. After the city war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new operative techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a “wait and see” approach. Medicine could handle bone bone injuries and increasingly attempt risky operations (now largely performed in sterile operative environments) but medicines are not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of demise always been the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet nausea and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.
This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950’s) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; “nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor whenever were relegated to emergencies so ordinary scenario costs are curtailed. The straightforward fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of somebody’s personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Apart from the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the obligation of the individual.