Now that this plan is on t he verge of going into effect, we have heard all the media reports and recently witnessed n epic government shutdown. There are many benefits to this national bill, but the d steadiness are evident as well. Some citizens oppose Beamer all together, but since t here are over two thousand pages full of overdue reforms in the Affordable Care Act, it is hard to completely throw out the law rather than revamping it (“History of the Passage e”).In the Beamer plan, insurance companies must cover sick people, and this increases the cost of everyone’s insurance ( “Beamer: Pros and Cons”) .
I understand the disadvantage of higher cost for insurance, because now insurance comma sees are required to cover the sick, but is that not the intended purpose for insurance? The insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to Americans. H owe is this bad? Those who were unable to find affordable coverage, or who were denied coverage due to preexisting conditions, can now get the coverage they should have bee n allotted Western 2 from the beginning.The Beamer plan allows for the consumer to not be d roped from coverage when they get sick or make mistakes on an insurance applicant on. The consumer cannot be denied coverage or treatment for being ill, cannot be chi urged more for being ill, or cannot be charged more for being a female ( “Beamer: Pros and Cons”) . This sounds extremely fair to me, since I am a consumer who is a woman wit h preexisting conditions, and I should have the opportunity to have affordable, quality healthcare. In today’s world, the cost of healthcare is outrageous.We all know it does not cost the hospital ten dollars for a Ethylene. However, due to malpractice suits, the fact that medical administration constitutes about thirty percent of U.
S. Health costs, a ND other contributing factors, this is what it costs the consumer without healthcare (Pee fear). Harvey Enabler MD, PhD, and president of the MOM , said during a webmaster press briefing, “How is it possible that we spend more money on healthcare than an y other country.
.. And at the same time we do not attain the same results in healthcare e outcomes and performance that others achieve? ” (Fire).I must also mention how par magnetically companies are charging more in the United States for medication than they d o in other countries (Hall).
This should be fixed by setting laws that force these companion sees to charge the United States an equal cost for the medication that they are giving o other countries at a lower average cost. It all comes down to greed and the lack of a unified system. However, one downfall of the Beamer plan is the fact that Beamer focuses more on making sure people are covered than it does on addressing t he cost of care in the first place, which is a major issue.Fortunately, though, Beamer should Western 3 help to curb the growth in healthcare spending ( “Beamer: Pros and Cons”) Some consumers will lose their current insurance because it does not meet the standards of the Affordable Care Act (Cohn). Some may see this as a disdain tag, but actually feel that it is a benefit. Experts have put these standards in place to RI d American citizens of bad coverage and high Coplay that are being offered to them by the companies. Now, with Beamer, consumers are able to get better coverage e at lower costs (Cohn).
There will be no cap on medical spending.Insurance companies used to be able to cut off payments in medical emergencies, causing millions to file media bankruptcy when they had met the annual, or lifetime spending caps (Cohn). I am sure it is a relief to many American citizens, especially the elderly, that will have prop engaged coverage without worry.
Several Westernizes countries in the world have a Universal Healthcare prior (Fisher). Provided healthcare in Canada is basically a birthright (Cooper). What would it feel like to not have to worry about being in over your head in medical bills be cause you had universal healthcare provided for you?If those who oppose the idea of a reformed healthcare plan had personal experience with universal healthcare, they may change their argument. Why would people oppose a plan that has hallucinated proof of success, that allows anyone to get the help when they it need, and that provides Indian duals and heir families with a level of comfort? Some who oppose the healthcare refer m may say because of the increase in taxes, or that experimentation procedures WI II likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care (Miserly).However, It c loud possibly do what it is meant to do, and medical professionals may have a beet ere capacity Western 4 to concentrate on healing the patient rather than concentrating on insurance procedures and malpractice liability (Miserly).
So, yes, there will be a tax increase, but no w medical professionals have an opportunity to give quality healthcare instead of care the t a private insurance company has stated is allotted to the consumer.Because of the overdresses in the Affordable Care Act, the need for affordable quality healthcare, the need to curb growth in healthcare spending , the promise of prolonged coverage without worry, and the substantial proof of universal he Ithacan working in Westernizes countries, it is Obvious that America needs this health care reform. The main concern is whether legislators will leave the Beamer Plan n as is or will they make necessary changes. There are experts who have come to the c inclusion that healthcare reform is needed.