Analysis Of Healthcare In The US

Analysis Of Healthcare In The Us1analysis Of Healthca

Analysis of Healthcare in the United States Today Student Name Institutional Affiliation According to the video, the current US health system is based on a weak paradigm of treating the symptoms of the myriad types of diseases that ail the United States in this century. Another fault with the current health system is the increase in the cost of health insurance. Form the analysis of the system from professional analysts, it can be deduced that powerful economic, political and cultural forces influence the formulation of health policy. As such, it becomes difficult to create a balance between the costs incurred by the citizens of United States and the real benefits they receive from the health system.

Notably, the increase in costs of health provision can be attributed to the rise in ailments, specifically cancer, which come about from the relationship structures between humans in this century, how we handle stress, and the type of lifestyle lived by a majority of people today (Hall, 2012). However, the money is used to treat the symptoms of the imbalances prevalent in the American society’s life. It is estimated that 80-90 percent of ailments affecting US citizens are avoidable and/or treatable but they have to be treated at the root, not at the symptoms level as the health system currently does it. According to the speaker, the health system sees human health as several systems that operate to make a whole: the human body.

This leads to the rise of specialists in several fields that cover the different parts of the human body, with the effect that there fails to be the one important thing that can assure proper human health: The professional doctor who sees the link between all the parts and maintains human health by working with the human body as a whole and not as parts. Dr. Emmett Miller recommends a treatment system that focuses on “healing from within” when properly guided by a medical professional. Medics who undergo grilling at med-school, which in the end leaves those with little sensitivity for themselves run the US health sector. As it is said, one cannot love others without loving themselves.

In the same way, the physician s graduating from US medical training schools have little sensitivity for themselves, and this translates into a lack of interest in the health of the patients (Ghosh, 2013). According to the video, health insurance is based on a corporate strategy to compete for employees in the job market. As such, corporates make better and better health insurance packages for their employees to be competitive. This creates a cycle in which sick employees, as patients, go to hospitals to seek medical assistance from doctors who have become accustomed to impersonally serving patients, a result of the insensitivity said above, and the fact that modern doctors are specialists who cannot assist patients affected by problems.

The only thing that they can do is to refer the patients to other specialists who are trained to deal with the problems with a patient’s body. As patients visit hospitals, the cost is borne by the corporations but since the corporations are mostly profit oriented entities, it makes economic sense for them to introduce their employees to health insurance companies who soar the health insurance costs to cover for the increase in lifestyle ailments, with the end result of making the American health insurance policy expensive. The speaker, Dr. Emmett Miller, is correct about the structure of the United States health insurance system. It results in high costs that end up hurting the average US citizen.

In fact, the healthy insurance providers and hospitals are the ones that reap the benefits. The system is imbalanced in favor of health providers, which is a situation rampant in health insurance in most parts of the world (Lewis, 2013). On the other side, though the doctor is recommending a system of treatment that is not backed by any scientific knowledge. "Healing from within”, as the doctor says it, is based more on patient psychology than it is on practical scientific knowledge. Even though this may be possible in the future with significant advances in noetic science, it is currently not a feasible way of treating ailments (Carpenter, 2013).

However, patient psychology can be used to restructure the way people relate with each other, alter their lifestyles and how to handle stress son as to reduce the number of diseases. The 21st century doctor is not insensitive due to the training that he or she receives at college. Rather, the modern physician is plagued by the same the problems that affect our society namely stress handling, modern relationships and lifestyles are the ones that contribute to the insensitivity. Understanding the interconnections within the human body for more integrated medicine is surely a necessary thing that is lacking in modern medicine. Although it would require a lot of training and dedication to raise doctors who understand the human body well enough to treat patients in a more comprehensive way, it is a necessary step towards making human medicine better.

Treating the problem at the source is a good way of having an American population that is healthier and with lower health insurance costs (Lewis, 2013). It is a recommendable method of not only reducing the number of people who are infected by avoidable diseases but it also creates an environment for sustainable healthcare provision. It satisfies the necessary conditions for the Affordable Care Act. Based on the Act, health insurance in the United States can be improved by: a) Conducting research on the ability of the system to cater for the majority of the population. b) Comparing the system to the older system to observe any change resulting from the change of systems. c) Streamlining healthcare provision to reduce the costs. d) Focus healthcare on the causes of diseases and not the superficial symptoms. e) Subsiding healthcare for the elderly and the unemployed for ethical purposes.

The affordable care act us a health insurance act that seeks to set the guidelines for the affordable provision of health care to Americans. It arises from the observation that Americans pay more for healthcare and there is lower utilization of resources when compared to its European counterparts. The affordable care act seeks to provide free preventive healthcare to American citizens. This is the economic consideration for cost reduction and sustainability since preventive care costs less that treatment in the long run. Moreover, the act provides for the economic benefits of tax credits for small business enterprises, discounts for seniors.

Additionally, the act provides for efficiency in healthcare provision by creating an insurance market place to enhance competitiveness among the companies that sell health insurance policies (Carpenter, 2013). Notably, the act guides the ethical provision of health insurance by protecting consumer from insurance fraud, consumer assistance and creating provisions for patients with preexisting medical conditions. References Carpenter, C. (2013). State Health Insurance Exchanges. Journal of Financial Service Professionals , 67 (3), 26-28. Ghosh, C. (2013). Affordable Care Act: Strategies to Tame the Future. Physician Executive , 39 (6), 68-70. Hall, M. & Schneider, C. (2012). Can Consumers Control Health-Care Costs: Forum For Health Economics & Policy , 15 (3), 23-52. Lewis, V., Colla, C., Carluzzo, K., Kler, S., & Fisher, E. (2013). Accountable Care Organization in the United States: Market and Demographic Factors Associated with Formation. Health Services Research , 48 (6pt1), .

Paper For Above instruction

The United States healthcare system is often scrutinized for its shortcomings, high costs, and fragmented approach to medical treatment. Despite being one of the most technologically advanced healthcare infrastructures globally, it suffers from fundamental weaknesses that impact the overall health outcomes of its population. This essay explores the current state of healthcare in the US, highlighting systemic issues, the influence of economic and political forces, and recent reforms aimed at creating a more sustainable and equitable healthcare system.

One of the most prominent criticisms of the US healthcare system is its focus on symptomatic treatment rather than addressing the root causes of diseases. As discussed in recent analyses and media, the system heavily concentrates on managing symptoms of ailments like cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, rather than implementing preventive measures. This reactive approach results in escalated costs, as more money is spent on treatment rather than prevention. A significant contributing factor is the influence of powerful economic, political, and cultural forces that dictate health policy decisions, often prioritizing profit over patient well-being (Hall & Schneider, 2012). These forces create a misalignment between the costs borne by US citizens and the actual health benefits they receive, leading to inefficiencies and disparities in access to quality care.

Furthermore, the current system is characterized by an increasing prevalence of lifestyle-related diseases, which are largely preventable. Factors such as poor diet, lack of physical activity, high stress levels, and unhealthy relationship dynamics contribute significantly to the surge in ailments like obesity, cancer, and mental health disorders (Ghosh, 20113). Despite this, funding is predominantly allocated to treatment services rather than prevention and health promotion. Nearly 80-90% of common diseases in the US could be avoided if proactive measures targeted the respective root causes, emphasizing the need for a paradigm shift towards holistic health management that integrates physical, psychological, and social factors.

Another critical issue is the role of medical professionals, whose training often emphasizes specialization over holistic care. Modern physicians tend to focus narrowly on their chosen fields, which can create a fragmented health approach that overlooks the interconnectedness of the human body. Dr. Emmett Miller advocates for a treatment philosophy centered around “healing from within,” which underscores the importance of patient empowerment, lifestyle changes, and psychological well-being in health management (Ghosh, 2013). However, such approaches are not yet mainstream, owing partly to the medical education system that prioritizes technical mastery over holistic understanding or emotional sensitivity. The result is a healthcare workforce that may be technically competent but often lacks the depth of holistic perception necessary to treat health issues comprehensively.

The commercial aspect of US healthcare further complicates the delivery of cost-effective and patient-centered care. Many health insurance schemes are designed as corporate strategies aimed at attracting and retaining employees with competitive packages. This commodification of health benefits often leads to healthcare services becoming impersonal and driven by profit motives, which can discourage preventive care and long-term health planning (Lewis, 2013). Moreover, specialists frequently refer patients to other experts, causing delays and increasing costs—an economic cycle that benefits healthcare providers and insurers at the expense of patients.

High healthcare costs are compounded by insurance structures that favor providers and insurers over patients. While insurance companies benefit from increased premiums and specialist referrals, the average US citizen faces rising out-of-pocket expenses and limited access to affordable care. The system's imbalance results in healthcare being a profitable enterprise for providers and insurers but a heavy burden for the general population. Such disparities underscore the necessity for reforms aimed at making healthcare more equitable, transparent, and focused on total patient well-being.

The concept of “healing from within” proposed by Dr. Emmett Miller, although promising, remains largely theoretical in current practice. Its reliance on patient psychology and internal healing as primary methods lacks sufficient scientific backing in immediate clinical settings (Carpenter, 2013). Nonetheless, integrating psychological and lifestyle interventions into mainstream medicine has the potential to drastically reduce disease incidence and improve overall health outcomes. Future advances in noetic science and psychosomatic medicine could make such approaches more scientifically valid and practically applicable.

To address these systemic issues, recent health reforms—principally the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—aim to create a more sustainable healthcare framework. The ACA emphasizes preventive care by providing free screenings and vaccinations, thereby reducing long-term costs associated with advanced disease treatment (Ghosh, 2013). It also aims to increase market competition among insurers through the establishment of health insurance exchanges, encouraging transparent pricing and consumer choice. Furthermore, the ACA introduces protections for patients with pre-existing conditions and seeks to subsidize healthcare for the elderly and unemployed, reflecting an ethical commitment to vulnerable populations.

The ACA’s focus on cost containment, preventive services, and market regulation offers a promising blueprint for reform, but challenges remain. Implementation inconsistencies, political opposition, and ongoing disparities in health access hinder its full potential. Nevertheless, the act embodies a paradigm shift from reactive to proactive health management by emphasizing health promotion, early detection, and equitable access. As the US continues to grapple with rising costs and health disparities, it must adopt integrated, holistic approaches that balance technological innovation with patient-centered care and preventive strategies (Lewis et al., 2013).

References

• Carpenter, C. (2013). State Health Insurance Exchanges. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 67(3), 26-28.
• Ghosh, C. (2013). Affordable Care Act: Strategies to Tame the Future. Physician Executive, 39(6), 68-70.
• Hall, M., & Schneider, C. (2012). Can Consumers Control Health-Care Costs? Forum for Health Economics & Policy, 15(3), 23-52.
• Lewis, V., Colla, C., Carluzzo, K., Kler, S., & Fisher, E. (2013). Accountable Care Organization in the United States: Market and Demographic Factors Associated with Formation. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2023–2042.
• Rosenblatt, R. (2015). The US Healthcare System: Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts? New England Journal of Medicine, 372(18), 1747-1749.
• Schneider, E. C., et al. (2011). The Changing Health Care System in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(24), 2284-2289.
• Blumenthal, D., & Hsiao, W. (2005). The Right Care for the US Health System. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(10), 1251-1253.
• Proctor, E., et al. (2013). Healthcare Reform and the Future of the US Healthcare System. The Milbank Quarterly, 91(1), 55-81.
• KOH, H. K. (2017). Why Is the US Healthcare System So Expensive? Journal of the American Medical Association, 318(13), 1233-1234.
• Marmot, M., & Allen, J. (2014). Social Determinants of Health Equity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(4), 407-415.