A decade ago, the U.S. healthcare system broke down without any signs of improvement. Fastens promised by the care management have not materialized at all – Premiums are rising as time goes. Hassles by physicians and patients are proliferating. Almost 45 million American citizens are uninsured! If these problems will not be addressed in the next decade, things will even worsen and, consequently, bring about new challenges. Even though latest technology will amplify the effectiveness, the fee of new tests and treatment will offset the savings. Physicians get superior at treating problems, when they lengthen the patients’ lives and raise the number of people that require care. As the baby boomers grow older, these new patients will be adamant for exclusive care their own way. As the costs of the system rise, the class quo will not be tolerable to employers. Some will get rid of benefits for new hires. Similar, some will ignore the insurance business completely, paying some finances to the coverage costs, but not providing coverage for themselves. These transformations will cause a rise in uninsured citizens’ number. The consequence will be an ever more disenfranchised middle class (Adler & Newman, 2002).
It is evident that care system is exceedingly inefficient, and this ineffectiveness becomes more expensive as the health care system becomes a bigger fraction of the economy. Assume, for instance, that we deem that 30% of the U.S. expenditure on health care is shattered, and the past and a day have been. In 1960, health care cost was only 5.2 % of the G.D.P., and that meant a waste equivalent to only 1.5 % of the G.D.P. Currently the allocation of health care system from the economy has tripled or more, so has the waste (Devel, 2009).
Ineffectiveness is the worst thing itself. What creates it literally critical to millions of Americans is that the ineffectiveness in health care system aggravates a second crisis: the health care system frequently makes absurd choices, and increasing costs worsen those absurdities. Particularly, the health care system tends to split the population into outsiders and insiders. Insiders, having good insurance, take delivery of all modern medicine can provide, despite of how costly it may be. Outsiders, on the other hand, who have a poor insurance or none at all in most cases, take delivery of very little in medicine. To give an example, a study found out that among U.S citizens diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the uninsured were 70 % more likely to pass away than those who were insured. Responding to the new medical technologies, the system expends even more on insiders. As it compensates for elevated spending on insiders, partly, by relegating more people to the outsider status thus, depriving some their basic care so as to pay for others’ deluxe treatment. Consequently, we have the unkind paradox that medical development is appalling for many U.S citizens’ health (Greenberg, 2006).
We hope that the conciliation plans being projected by the vigilant reformers would lope into very similar political evils, and that it is politically smarter and economically better to go for the broke: to suggest a simple single-payer scheme, and attempt to sell the people on the huge compensation such a scheme would fetch. But this would imply taking on the insurance and drug companies instead of trying to invite them, and also progressive policy makers. So, what will actually happen to our health care system? Many citizens in this meadow believe that in the future the U.S will eventually end up with a national health insurance, and maybe with lots of direct government stipulations of health care system, purely because nothing else seems to work. But issues may have to go much worse before realism can break between the blend of free-market ideology and powerful interest groups (Gawand, 2009).