There is no defined constitutional right to health care in the U.S. at the government’s expense. According to (Swendiman, 2010), congress has enacted numerous statutes which establish and define statutory rights of individuals to receive medical services from the government. It is everyone’s individual right to have health care in the U.S., but no requirement by law. In no amendment this right is found because of enactment of laws. Furthermore, the Congress’ authority to enact health care legislation derives from the enumerated powers set forth in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, (Swendiman, 2010). This leads the Congress to tax and spend for the overall population which been the main basis of statutory authority and the health care
…show more content…
More services, doctors, nurses, and preventive services available for people of low, middle, and upper income status. The cons for policy on preventive services are cost-effective means that the benefits of improved health outcomes outweigh the costs associated with preventive service and the long-term consequences of getting the services (such as radiation exposure from routine mammograms), (healthaffairs.org, 2010). It depends on the individual and type of preventive service and where the service is covered is a downfall. With preventive services come expensive fees for the services. Also, more tests and screenings may result in increased costs and not improve health outcomes. The pros of having a policy geared towards rescue/ treatment is having state and federal officials can reduce the burden on emergency department by expanding patient access to private health insurance, separating emergency services planning from hospital planning, promoting private-sector alternatives for urgent care, and freeing hospitals to specialize in nonemergency medical care, (O’Shea, 2007). By implementing a policy with these rules it’s a huge advantage to have the emergency department and rescue in functional standing. Lastly, a reform made by the state for disaster preparedness, and terrorist attacks is a helpful policymaking need for hospitals and emergency departments. The con for implementing a policy for rescue/ treatment is the possibility of waste and inefficiency of excess health care by inaccurate estimation. Another example is, disagreements with patients and doctors arising because of a potential non-emergent treatment for the patient. Also, insurers disagreeing with doctors and health care managers of each other’s definition of an “emergent condition”. Emergency treatment varies depending on the
More services, doctors, nurses, and preventive services available for people of low, middle, and upper income status. The cons for policy on preventive services are cost-effective means that the benefits of improved health outcomes outweigh the costs associated with preventive service and the long-term consequences of getting the services (such as radiation exposure from routine mammograms), (healthaffairs.org, 2010). It depends on the individual and type of preventive service and where the service is covered is a downfall. With preventive services come expensive fees for the services. Also, more tests and screenings may result in increased costs and not improve health outcomes. The pros of having a policy geared towards rescue/ treatment is having state and federal officials can reduce the burden on emergency department by expanding patient access to private health insurance, separating emergency services planning from hospital planning, promoting private-sector alternatives for urgent care, and freeing hospitals to specialize in nonemergency medical care, (O’Shea, 2007). By implementing a policy with these rules it’s a huge advantage to have the emergency department and rescue in functional standing. Lastly, a reform made by the state for disaster preparedness, and terrorist attacks is a helpful policymaking need for hospitals and emergency departments. The con for implementing a policy for rescue/ treatment is the possibility of waste and inefficiency of excess health care by inaccurate estimation. Another example is, disagreements with patients and doctors arising because of a potential non-emergent treatment for the patient. Also, insurers disagreeing with doctors and health care managers of each other’s definition of an “emergent condition”. Emergency treatment varies depending on the