Universal Health Care

ABSTRACT
Universal access to medical care is a health care program that will afford all US citizens free medical care. This program is suggesting a removal of all medical insurance companies and third parties in the health care system, and a $10 tax increase in utility bills. Universal access medical care is about putting consumers in charge of health care.

UNIVERSAL ACCESS MEDICAL CARE
Universal access medical care is a program that will afford all citizens free medical care. Studies have shown that medical costs in the United States have tripled in recent years as indicated by Herzlinger:
“The health insurance system in the United States is broken, business and citizens are paying the price. Employers’ insurance premiums reached an estimate $45 billion in 2000, and then shot up again, at three times the rate of inflation in 2001.” (Let’s Put Consumers in Charge of Health care p. 44)
Universal access medical care will follow ethical theories of care approach for this program design and its implementation. Ethics of care emphasizes caring for the concrete well being (Velasquez p 102). Federal and State governments need to show that they care for their citizens by allowing free medical care to all. Consumers (citizens) have been burdened by medical costs that have been sky rocketing each passing year. This program will allow citizens to take control of their health care by applying pressure to the health care industry.
“When consumers apply pressure on an industry, whether it’s retailing or banking, cars or computers, it invariably produces a surge of innovations that increases productivity, reduces prices, improves quality and expands choices. The essential problem with the health care industry is that it has been shielded from consumer control.” (Let’s Put Consumers in Charge of Health care p. 45)
HEALTH CARE REVOLUTION
Universal access medical care is about a revolution to the health care industry. The revolution will make “health care providers responding to consumer demands ….. and to better quality health care and a more productive health care system.” (p. 52) Universal access medical care revolution will require an ethical approach from theories of compensatory justice. Compensatory justice is an approach which “fairly restores to a person (or society) what the person lost when he or she was wronged by someone else (or an industry) (Velasquez, 2006). In this case both the medical insurance companies and health care providers have been running healthcare programs to their advantage and robbed citizens of their right to decide and participate in medical care of their choosing and according to their needs.
UTILITY TAX INCREASE
The recent State Children Insurance Program (SCHIP) proposal which is still in the congressional discussion between the white house and the congress is one sure sign of our time that the revolution to our health care system is inevitable. SCHIP proposes a tax increase of about 70 cents to tobacco and alcohol products to cover medical insurance to the needy children and the children that can not afford other forms of other medical insurance. Universal access medical care is proposing a tax increase in utility bills (electricity, gas, telephone and water). A flat $10 increase in all utility bills per household will enable every house hold to access free medical care and cancel all these medical insurances. Studies have shown that medical insurance companies have been benefiting from medical enrollments and that consumers have been charged premiums instead of actual medical costs.
“In 2000, according to a study by the Kaisler Foundation, More that 60% of the employees have seen prices reflected factors other than the actual price of medical.” (p. 48)
According to Kaisler Foundation, an average household contributes for medical insurance between $35 to $150 each pay check. If we assumed that a house hold will have an average of three to four utility bills, then the amount paid to take care of medical care from the bills and taking control of the health care system will be cheaper than the current health care premiums that are paid by house holds. By taking control of the health care system, it means eliminating the bureaucracy of insurance companies and all third parties in the health care that collects from both consumers and providers.
A study conducted by Silverstein and Fisle, shows that a household per capital income has increased, while house hold size shrinks (Luxury for the Masses p. 53). The fact that house hold income has increase it means that an increase of $10 on utility bills in place of medical insurance can be afforded by all house hold.
“Real household income rose by more than 50% from 1970 to 2000. But averages do not tell the whole story, because house holds income for the top quintile, those earning more than 82,000 per year – rose at a much faster rate than for any other quintile.”(p. 52)
Removing health insurance from business will allow business to concentrate more on the goals and missions of their existence. Some business are not profitable because of the “burden of providing employee benefits is growing heavier for firms in the United States than it is for organizations in other countries.” (Moorhead and Griffin, 2001)
In alignment with the two theories of ethics that I have discussed above, this program will also take Kant theory of moral rights in three categorical stages as we develop the health program and in taking control of medical care industry.
1. Moral rights are tightly correlated with duties (Velasquez p. 74), in justifying actions to take control in health care system, Kant’s theory suggests that this right should be correlated with some kind of duty. Citizens will complete their end of the bargain (duty) by paying extra money in the utility bills as proposed above.
2. Moral rights provide individuals with autonomy and equality in the free pursuit of their interests (Velasquez p.75); in this stage the equality will be evidenced by all citizens receiving free medical care.
3. Moral rights provide a basis for justifying ones action and for invoking the protection or aid of others (Velasquez p. 75). Citizens’ actions to take control of the health care system are justified by the abuses that are coming from health insurance companies and providers and the need to get rid of third parties in the health system as discussed above.
CONCLUSION
Providing free medical access will help consumers take control of their health care. Taking control of health care is a theory that is supported by Thomke and Hippel in their study for customers as innovators, “listen carefully to what your customers want and then respond with new products that meet or exceed their needs.”(p. 74). What customers want right now is free medical access and this revolution will give them that because medical insurance companies have abandoned their efforts to understand what customers want.

References:
Herzlinger, Regina E. (July 2002) Let’s Put Consumers in Charge of Health Care.
Harvard Business Review. July 2002, 44 – 55.
Velasquez, Manuel G. (2006) Business Ethics Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Silverstain, Michael J., Fiske, Neil. (April 2003). Luxury for the Masses. Harvard
Business Review. April 2003, 48 – 57.
Moorhead, Gregory., Griffin, Ricky W. (2001) Organizational Behavior: Managing
People and Organizations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Thomke, Stefan., Hippel, Eric Von. (April 2002) Customers as Innovators: A New Way
to Create Value. Harvard Business Review. April 2002, 74 – 81

Dream Fulfilled

One will never stop to be amazed by the greatness of Mr. Nelson Mandela and his soft skills in dealing with adversaries. A people’s person. A man of his own caliber and mannerism. A Nobel Prize distinguished winner. Words always fail me when I put my mind to task so I can do justice by describing this great man but yet down to earth individual. Best things in life are free, so is his wisdom.

Mr. Mandela' biography is a little bit long but very enlightens about his life and where he came from.


Photo taken from: http://www.africawithin.com/mandela/mandela_gallery1.htm

Straight From The Gut

Among the great CEOs, past and present of my generation, Jack Welch, Former General Elecric (GE), earns my unquestionable respect for being one of the greatest CEO in global management. Welch is one of the greatest innovators of the past 75 years. an icon of global business, management and corporate leadership. Jack Welch used a detailed step by step management style to achieve his organization vision the style that was easily understood and followed for GE to be a true global winner in management and bottom lines.

Most prominent people like Rudy Guliani have agreed that Jack Welch knows how to win. during his forty-year career at General Electric, he led the company to year-after-year success around the globe in multiple markets, against brutal competition. his honest, be-the-best style of management became the gold standard in business with his focus on people, team work and projects.

Jack Welch used real-life examples and the same tell-it-like-it-is style of corporate management to help reinvigorate GE into global competition. One of the best thing about Jack, was how much he cared about both his company and and employees success. He was focused in the direction of the big picture where employees could succeed in both their careers and in their perosnal life. You can read more about Jack Welch management philosophies in his two books Straigth From The Gut and Winning.

Iran and US "Chicken Game at Play" and Gas Prices

Well, gas has sky rocketed again, are the sanctions against Iran be the cause for this? There is always a cause and effect to every action we take. Most people are asking whether or not Iran has anything to do with the rising of gas prices. Here Is what Iran has to say

Iran has in the past expressed a need for a dialog with either UN or the US and all these efforts were ignored. Could it have been much better to hear Iranian President's side of the story and his objectives? well, Iranian President had planned to be at the UN security council to state his side opinions, however, Visa technicalities to the US made him cancel the intended trip. I sometimes wonder if these technicalities and delays on visa were intentional or otherwise. A lot is left to be discussed about this Visa issue.

I can only speculate about these rising high prices on gas, however,the person who feel the pinch on gas prices is not President George Bush or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.You can figure that out.

One will not stop to wonder the role of Iran in the wake of these rising gas prices and crude oil. A gallon of gas stand at $2.80 in most US cities and speculations are growing wild every passing day that we will soon reach the record high of above $3.00 a gallon. These gas prices do not only affect the US alone, woes of grunted peaceful nations on gas prices can not be silenced or made still unless the fate of Iraq is decided.

And on the other hand, it will be fair enough if the role of US in this dilemma is also explained. First things first, Tehran is viewed by the US as the present and clear danger in the atomic and nuclear era. Tehran is not welcomed in the elite club of the nuclear superpowers. Tehran wants to fletch her muscles any where and with no apparent reason for a soft spot, just to make her presence felt, either in the Arab or western world. Washington believes that Tehran has inflicted his terrorists members into Iraq and therefore undermine the presence of US and coalition forces (even though nowadays you can hardly hear coalition forces, it is always US forces). In simple calculated terms both US and Iran have no intentions of a round table discussion to sort out their differences, however both of them would one in a while take to the press some burning issues between them and so declare their view point or even counterattack the aggressive part.

Iran is boiling with many objectives to show cause that without Iran and Syria involvement in Iraq all US efforts are born in vain. Washington wants nothing to do with Iran when it comes to Iraq mess. Iran is believed by Washington to be the catalyst that has done more aggravation to the progress of Iraq peace, freedom and calmness. When US 5 military choppers were brought down in two weeks, the entire world was divided as to who between US and Iran is doing more damage that good to Iraq.

UN part in this two nations backlash predicament is viewed as the moderator in the triple threat global management at play when US dictate the direction of the UN or otherwise and the stakes of UN are heavily dependent of the US government. UN as a dialog facilitator for this tug of war between the US and Iran, never managed to have both parties at a fact finding dialog. The world is really complicated at each connecting pole, however good global management from UN could harmonize tensions and conflicts of the world irrespective of the nations rating of superiority in military and wealth.

Do the sanctions worsen the global management with the Arab world in one side and the US on the other? How best could this situation have been resolved in the absence of sanctions? And finally how best should the UN be commited to its responsibility without bias considering the tremendous monetary and manpower contributions from US government?