Should the federal government take a more aggressive role or should the free market be allowed to reshape the system?
Introduction
The debate about the United States' healthcare reforms ranges far and wide. There are parties or individuals who are mostly interested in issues of cost escalation and how to stop it. On the other hand, there are groups of decision-makers who are specifically interested in the issues of quality of healthcare provision. Additionally, some economists and healthcare providers mainly focus on the issues of medical access as well as patient safety. The above ideas and decisions exist in the free market and when they are linked together, a comprehensive and a better decision will emerge, a situation that will lead to an inclusive health care services. The free market should, therefore, be allowed to reshape the healthcare system through the incorporation of various ideologies that are helpful in improving the medical services.
Problems of Cost
Cost is one of the major concerns in the provision of medical services, there has been the existence of conflicts between the medical providers, patients, and the insurers. The federal government alone cannot control the costs of medical provisions (Heskett 3). When the federal government is allowed to take aggressive roles, most of the corporation involved in the healthcare systems will not have the opportunity to support the patients they so desire. On the other hand, the Federal government needs to consider the decisions from all the stakeholders involved in the provision of healthcare services. The decisions are always made by the experts not the government; they understand the systems and all its possible faults and as well as strengths. The most achievable solution to the challenging healthcare system majorly lies on the free market, although some government interventions are necessary.
Issues of Healthcare Quality
The quality of healthcare system in the United States has raised a lot of questions over the decades. To improve the idea of quality, the Federal government alone cannot offer solutions on the improvement of nature of the operation. The free market should be allowed to reshape the system with an aim of increasing the quality of services as well as the support from different stakeholders. The only thing that the government should control is the quality of drugs from within the country and from the international markets because they have the mandates and the responsibility of doing so. Additionally, the government should also take part in regulating insurance policies as well as ethical issues in the medical industry that sometimes cause a decline in quality (Pavlish et al. 27). The free market will create a competition in the sale of drugs, a scenario that will enhance the production and supply of appropriate drugs. When the Federal government resorts to taking aggressive roles, most healthcare stakeholders will not part actively in decision making.
Access to Healthcare Services
Access to the medical services is one of the major challenge in the healthcare sector that even the Federal government is grappling with. The issues of access require the informed decisions and dynamics from the ever-changing free market (Frank 11). The issues of access cannot only be solved by the stiff measure from the federal government. It requires the adoption of new ideas from the changing drug markets as well as the new technological ideas that reduce the complexity of the medical access. When the Federal government imposes aggressive measures on the healthcare services, more funds will be used in funding various activities, funds that can be diverted to other economic activities capable of generating more income to the state.
Works Cited
Frank, Robert H. "A Health Care Plan So Simple, Even Stephen Colbert Couldn't Simplify It." The New York Times (2011).
Heskett, Jim. "What is the Government's Role in US Healthcare?" HBS Working Knowledge (2008).
Pavlish, Carol Lynn, Sahra Noor, and Joan Brandt. "Somali immigrant women and the American health care system: discordant beliefs, divergent expectations, and silent worries." Social science & medicine 71.2 (2010): 353-361.
