Government and private health care systems

¶ … health policy change ( a bill, a law, exist ) state federal level change . 1.The policy NOT a clinical care policy individual care. The policy involved include public community health, legislative regulatory, professional organization (nursing-oriented), advanced nursing practice, health plan, hospital plan.

Policy changes in the health sector have always been controversial, as each change, regardless of its significance, triggers a wave of other changes and practically forces authorities in the domain to adapt. In order for reform to take place, the number and influence of the bodies involved plays an important role. The number and influence of individuals who benefit from a health reform often contrasts the community of people who take part in designing and implementing it.

While patient-centered health policies have previously been addressed in a series of occasions, in most of these cases they were found to be ineffective and failed to reach their purpose. The relationship between patients and doctors needs to be one of the primary elements that the authorities take into account when trying to come up with a policy that successfully addresses the needs of the general public.

In order to achieve best results in implementing a new policy, medical institutions would have to firstly acknowledge the significance of nurses in the overall medical environment. By focusing on nurses as the backbone of the medical industry, they would be able to address issues they come across from a perspective allowing them to get involved at a micro-level. Education thus needs to be considered as one of the most important elements in creating a health care policy.

The health care industry still has the tendency to concentrate on the government as being the principal player on the market. This makes it difficult for many private entities to successfully promote their products and services. Nursing is strongly connected to how free market bodies function, taking into account that nurses in general are actively involved in both providing services and in effectively making use of products. Even with this, the government can collaborate with free market entities by directing tax policies toward enabling institutions to address issues within the industry (CQ Press 2014, p. 325).

Many are inclined to believe that the idea of a free market health care industry contrasts the interests of the government and the people. However, the reality is that free market entities are able to limit government involved in health care, thus making it possible for experienced bodies to play a more significant role in the industry. Free market institutions can be successful through the fact that they compete with one-another and can thus either lower tariffs or even go as far as to abolish them. These respective bodies can encourage the government to install laws that cross borders and that thus provide cheaper and more effective health care to a larger number of individuals. "Technology makes it possible to have a radiologist in the United States examining a patient in Canada thousands of miles away." (Drache & Sullivan 2005, p. 91)

It would be impossible for the government to get out of the way completely, but this does not mean that it should regulate private health care providers to a degree where they would be unable to effectively provide their services. Such companies can be beneficial for the country as a whole not only because of their ability to provide health care, as they would also contribute significantly to the economy and would thus bring on a type of assistance that assists the country as a whole rather than a limited number of individuals.

A stronger collaboration between the government and insurance companies would support both bodies in being able to exploit one another while also acting in accordance with a series of regulations. While they would profit from providing insurance policies to the masses, insurers would also be forced to provide health care services for everyone that required their services. The larger the number of people insured the greater the profit for insurance companies and the greater the possibility for individuals to access health care without having to go through great efforts in order to do so. A more complex form of Obamacare provisions would likely be of great assistance for the American public. It would gradually be provided with a series of benefits that would otherwise be especially costly and that would be likely to experience problems as long as it would only be controlled by the government. The bottom line is that private health care institutions are concerned about providing better services and would thus be focused on competing with one-another with the purpose of influencing the masses and the government to support them as much as possible.

The reality is that the private health care system and the masses were discouraged as a result of seeing the Obama and Clinton Administration fail in trying to provide health care to a larger public. Even with this, this does not mean that a free market is not good enough to provide health care services to the general public. The problem is simply that the methods used to provide health care were not good enough and that a reform directed at improving relations between the government and private health care providers would be more probable to experience success in assisting individuals in need by presenting them with access to a wider range of services.