Improving Provision Of Medical Service For Its People

Medicaid has help many qualified Americans who were historically unable to access health care. At the same time, it has raised questions and controversies as how efficient is the plan overall. Various research studies were conducted and contradicting results were presented. According to Paradise and Garfield (2013), some said that having no coverage at all is better that having a Medicaid coverage. On the other hand, some expressed that Medicaid paved a way to improved health due to increased access to services that provides prevention of diseases, health maintenance, and effective treatment (Paradise & Garfield, 2013). As for me I am in favor of the later, health care access for all. It comes down to equitable distribution of resources

The benefits and drawbacks of having state health programs verses one that is uniform across the country can vary on a broad basis. Medicare and Medicaid are state and federally funded health programs; programs that must be fair and allow access to everyone across the country that are enrolled and eligible to receive such benefits. In addition, these programs have unlimited caps so that there is flexibility to continue financing care without delay. The Medicare program was designed to provide access to health care for those who are not able to afford appropriate health care and meet the needs of vulnerable communities. If it were not for the assistance of the federal government in providing states the necessary funds to continue providing health

The federal and state governments are the largest supporters of health care services in the United States. Examples of support that our government provides include assisting those who are in need of health care with numerous options such as Medicare and Medicaid, the employment of millions of people, and billions of dollars each year for new discoveries, treatments, and cures. The government does indeed offer great assistance with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, two of the largest programs that the government is involved in. Not only does the government provide those who are in need with Medicare and Medicaid, but there is also the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). These programs provided by the government are there to help those who cannot afford insurance. Insurance is not affordable to many families due to the economy and I feel that just because a family or an individual cannot afford insurance does not mean they should not be able to

Texas born and raised means a lot of things, but for me it means diverse. As a child, I grew up in the southside of San Antonio and attended a Catholic school which contributed majorly to how I act now and has impacted how I view others. However, in the 7th grade, I moved to the Texas Hill Country and learned a plethora of contradictory views. This has led me to form my own opinions on what is right and wrong and meshed city and country life to create a well-rounded, diverse Texan.

Throughout the early 1980’s and 1990’s the Federal Medicaid program was challenged by rapidly rising Medicaid program costs and an increasing number of uninsured population. One of the primary reasons for the overall increase in healthcare costs is the

Money plays a huge role in access, therefore it is a vital issue to discuss. Within the current system, lack of money results in lack of health care, which leaves thousands of people without any health care coverage. Between 2001 and 2005, the number of people paying for health insurance increased 30%, however income only raised 3% (Health Care Problems). Adequate income is a necessity and unfortunately that is not present. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the average annual premium across the country is $16,000. Currently, the average annual income in the United States is $51,107. Mint Money Management suggests that about 4-6% of one’s total income should be spent on insurance, including life, disability, and health insurance. However, the averages in the United States show that the average person spends about 31% of their income on health insurance, which is not financially beneficial. When this rise in health insurance is not parallel to the inflation of income, innocent people are left without a method to achieve health care. There is a program for those who can’t afford health insurance out of pocket nor have access to it, and that is called Medicaid. Issues still exist with the program. There is only so much funding, which leaves many still uninsured. Additionally, people with Medicaid have difficulty

In March 2010, one of the most controversial bills in modern history was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded the 1965 bill passed under President Johnson that created Medicare and Medicaid (“LBJ Presidential Library,” 2015). While the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare” as it has been dubbed by the media, has many components, the focus here is the expansion of Medicaid. Obamacare sought to expand Medicaid to cover those who earn too much to qualify for traditional Medicaid, but not enough to afford employer-provided health care. These people are said to be in the “coverage gap” (“Obamacare Medicaid expansion,” 2015). While only 32 states have adopted Obamacare, we should advance a policy encouraging the remaining states to expand existing coverage by extending the period of federal government cost-sharing an additional five years. Doing so would give states previously refusing the cost sharing a second chance to opt-in. This expansion would save money for the states from some of the rising cost of healthcare, and fulfill our moral duty to care for uninsured Americans.

Basically what Medicaid does is expand covering about 133 percent of the population close to the poverty line. This is significant because people above the poverty line that previously did not qualify, now they can be cover by Medicaid, including the lower middle class. The Federal Government is subsidizing this by giving the states the money to pay for everyone under the program, but they are afraid that the money is going to run out and they are going to be left out with the problem.

The majority of the current organizational cultural studies have been focused on a traditional population model, where immigrants are the quantitative minority within a substantially larger native population. This creates a problem because there is a knowledge gap about the process of acculturation of immigrants into a country in regions where they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The purpose of this dissertation was to study the process of acculturation of Hispanic immigrants in the Miami-Dade County where they are the majority, into the more general U.S. culture. To do so, this dissertation used a quantitative descriptive research methodology, based on the original Cultural Dimensions theory by Dr. Hofstede, to study the cultural

In recent years, health care has been a huge topic in public debates, legislations, and even in deciding who will become the next president. There have been many acts, legislations, and debates on what the country has to do in regards to health care. According to University of Phoenix Read Me First HCS/235 (n.d.), “How health care is financed influences access to health care, how health care is delivered, the quality of health care provided, and its cost”.

The discussion that took place during week three focused broadly on comparing the differences in vision, personality and ideas of the primitive between Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin. These differences were investigated through their working relationship, as shown by their letters of correspondence, and the art each artist produced during this time. The group discussed comparisons between Van Gogh’s plan and almost obsession with making the Studio of the South work and Gauguin’s wanderlust that kept him moving. The ideal studio of both Gauguin and Van Gogh opened up discussion further to what aspects of the primitive each painter was influenced by in their attempted creation of a utopian working space. The readings from Childs and the

In a traditionalist state, such as Texas, the financial toll that Medicaid would have on its taxpayers was on the frontlines. The Texas legislature was worried about whether or not its taxpayers would face a tax increase to cover the increased cost of those covered by Medicaid. These taxpayers would inadvertently pay for the hospital bills of those who are uninsured in Texas through an average $1,800 rise in the cost of their premiums (Rapoport, 2012). In support of expanding Medicaid, Texas would receive federal funds in order to ease the cost that accompany the expansion. Since Texas decided not to expand Medicaid, Texas “would be leaving billions and billions of federal dollars on the table” according to Anne Dunkelberg (Rapoport, 2012). Not only does this monetary incentive give Texas an extra push to participate towards expanding Medicaid but it would also help the residents of the state to get insured. Texas legislators understood that this monetary incentive would not fully cover the cost of the newly enrolled Medicaid recipients. In the end, they would have to rework the annual budget and increase taxes in order to cover these extra recipients.

Medicaid is a social health care program that covers nearly 60 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, seniors, parents and individuals suffering with disabilities. Medicaid is the biggest source of funding for health related services and medical needs for the people with low income in the United States. This program is funded jointly by the state and federal level governments, but it is the state’s responsibility to manage this program. The Medicaid program is not a required program that states have to use, but all 50 states have implemented this program. With the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and its passing in 2010, the ACA unveiled its plans to expand Medicaid eligibility to nearly all low-income adults as an addition to the other groups that fall into the Medicaid eligibility. The Medicaid program had “many gaps in coverage for adults” because it was only restricted to the low income individuals and other people with needs in their own specific category. In the past, the majority of the states who had adults that did not have children dependent on those parents were not eligible for Medicaid. These low income adults without dependent children would be without medical insurance assistance before the ACA was introduced. Medicaid is now available to all Americans under the age of 65 whose family income is at or below the federal poverty guideline of “133 percent or $14,484 for an individual and $29,726 for a family of four in 2011” (NSCL).

There are some problems that must be addressed in the expansion of the Medicaid policy to include; social, economic, ethical, legal and political. First, the social impact of having health insurance removes the burden off of parents, people with chronic diseases, children and the disabled. If access to health insurance is unavailable our nation’s health care costs will continue to rise,

Medicare and Medicaid are two of the United States largest broken systems, which must sustain themselves in order to provide care to their beneficiaries. Both Medicare and Medicaid are funding by a joint effort between the federal government and the local state government. If and when these governments choose to cut funding or reduce spending, Medicare and Medicaid take the biggest hit. Most people see these two benefits as one in the same, two benefits the government takes out of their pay check to help fund health care. While the government does deduct a sum from paychecks everywhere, Medicare and Medicaid are very two very different programs.