The Federal Government’s National Health Care Program is meant to ensure that people receive the best health care. A key component of the program is the regulations. First, health insurers are required to cover all people who apply no matter their prevailing medical conditions. The problem is that these private insurers usually charge high premiums in case one has a recurrent medical condition just to discourage one from applying. In such a case, the one who suffers is the patient not the insurer.

To maintain the health insurance program, taxation has risen. This is very real in my pay slip. The spending in health care is rapidly increasing in recent years. Economists have had different views with some arguing that this kind of spending lowers the rate of growth of GDP. However, others argue that the effect is neutral in that it improves access to health care treatments and technologies (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2015). With the increased taxes, the household income is reduced which leads to less consumption and less GDP. However, there is the benefit of improved health care, which can be argued to balance the effect.

Personally, the health care program has not affected me. I do not have any recurring medical conditions and though taxes have increased, I cannot blame it specifically on the heath care. I feel safe knowing that my health issues are covered at an affordable cost. However, there are those people who have to get the private covers, which are not always affordable.

References

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2015). Effects of Health Care Spending on the U.S. Economy. Retrieved July 14, 2016, from https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/effects-health-care-spending-us-economy

Response to Malcolm Young

Hi Malcolm, great analysis over there, people will always shift their behavior in relation to their cover. In the example you have indicated, why would I want a partial warranty when I can get a full warranty. I agree with you that. Deductibles and co-pays are in place in an effort to limit consumer likelihood to take risks and apply financial accountability. A consumer with co-pay is less likely to take risks and is more likely involved in wellness programs than one with no deductible. In the future, the health care will be accessible to all thus improving the life of the people. However, this will come at a cost of increased taxation leading to less consumption and less GDP. Though this might increase the lifespan of the consumers, the cost involved can also be huge for the same consumers. In summary, the economic effect can be positive or negative depending on how one views it.

Response to Rosalie O’Brien

Hi Rosalie, great line of thought over there, sorry about your ankle condition. The fact that private insurers are expected to cover all people including people who have a condition like you does not always work out. The regulation that is meant to help the consumers ended up affecting them. Private insurers had to ask you for high premiums just to discourage you from applying for their health insurance covers. The business people always have a way of making money and the federal government should set a price ceiling for all people not the elderly only. Though the program negatively affected you, it has helped many other people who could otherwise not afford health care bills. Like anything else, it has its advantages and disadvantages. One way to look at it is that it has increased taxation but services are now better, the increased cost is balanced by the social gain from better services.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?