Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
4113 discussion replies dr. rocal
please reply to this two posts.
Attaining healthcare services can be compared to receiving any other rendered services created for the purpose of benefiting the customer and the organization. In comparison, if the customer has the legal right and the sufficient amount of financials to attain good quality service, they can do so. Whether it’s providing food, clothes, entertainment or health, financing is needed for survival. Financing refers to the raising or collection of revenue to pay for operations of the system (Merson, 2012, p.629). With that being said, this makes the question of whether access to healthcare should depend on people’s needs or people’s ability to pay more sensitive. It should be a morale principle for everyone to care for each other no matter what culture, race, or financial status. At the same time it is also imperative to take care of one’s self and if they cannot they could appeal to charities, friends, families or churches (“Is Healtcare is a right? A balanced opinion,” 2010). If we focus on giving access to care to anyone or everyone while disregarding pay, the organization suffers financially and eventually goes out of business. If we only focus on patients who are able to pay, large populations of poor and needy people suffer and eventually perish. The ideal solution is to find a balance in between. Starting with choice. It should be a choice for providers to give free care if they deem it medically necessary and financially possible. There is also a need for regulation, which in this case is when the government exerts control over the activities of individuals and firms (Merson, 2012, p. 625). With the use of regulation, governments can decrease market failure and implement new ways to assist the indigents, while also altering the way providers make choices. To put this argument in conclusion, my answer to the question is both.
There are two sides to the long lasting issue between whether or not there should be access to health care for all. On one hand if access to health care is viewed equally to access of other goods and services then there should be a compensation for those who cannot afford it. For example, citizens in America who are unable to afford food will apply to the government in order to receive food stamps. Although they are not going to be receiving the same quality or amount of food as others who pay for it out of their own expense, they will still be receiving food in order to survive. Yes, health care is a means of survival, similar to that of food and water (Merson et. al., 2011). In my opinion, a similar policy should be created in order to have access to health care, even if that means having a less quality of care due to the fact that is government funded as oppose to paid out of the citizen's own expense. The flaw in this system however was present when physicians began to refuse patient care for those patients having Medicaid insurance. Physicians began to do so due to the fact that the government funded Medicaid insurance “pays doctors far less than it costs those doctors to care for Medicaid patients” (Roy, 2013. This is were the issue remains and needs to be solved on the governments end in order for all to have access to health care.