Healthcare: Universal Conditions, Universal Qualifications, and Universal Ramifications?

Healthcare in Spanish-Speaking Countries vs. Healthcare in the United States of America  September 2011, C.E. Jones
HEALTHCARE IN SPANISH-SPEAKING NATIONS (THOSE WITH AND WITHOUT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE) I.  MEXICO Public health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery (Obstetrics [OB]) system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution of Mexico. Public care is either fully or partially subsidized by the federal government, depending on the person's (Spanish: derechohabiente's [right to citizenship]) employment status. All Mexican citizens are eligible for subsidized health care regardless of age, gender, or employment via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency. Employed citizens and their dependents, however, are further eligible to use the health care program administered and operated by the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) (English: Mexican Social Security Institute). The IMSS health care program is a tripartite (See:  Black's Law Dictionary, 8 ed.) system funded equally by the employee, its private employer, and the revenue and reserves of the federal government. The IMSS does not provide service to employees of the public sector. Employees in the public sector are serviced by the Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE) (English: Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers), which attends to the health and social care needs of government employees. This includes the tripartite branches:  local, state, and federal government employees. The government of the states in Mexico additionally provide health services independently of those services provided by the federal government programs. In most states, the state government has established free or subsidized healthcare to all their citizens.  In the states that have not done so, the citizens are treated via federal funds. On December 1, 2006 the Mexican government created the Health Insurance for a New Generation also known as "life insurance for babies," assigning prenatal policies. On May 16, 2009 Mexico to Achieve Universal Health Coverage by 2011. On May 28, 2009 Mexico announced Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women. II.  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO A universal health care system is extant in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the populus seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens. VS. THE LACK OF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IN THE UNITED STATES The United States does not have a universal health care system; it is a proposed reform. The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a universal health care system several times since 1991, and have uniformly predicted cost savings, probably because of the 40% cost savings associated with universal preventative care and elimination of insurance company overhead costs.  In 2009, a universal health care proposal was pending in Congress, the United States National Healthcare Act (H.R. 676, formerly the "Medicare for All Act"). The Obama administration health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as amended by the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act of 2010, seeks to have near-univesal healthcare insurance coverage to legal residents, as well as mandatory neccessary health care, including immunizations.  Exceptions to these medical practices may and will occur due to religious reasons.  An officially recognized religion of 200 or more persons is what comprises a rligious corpus that has legal rights and recognition.  Individuali preferences and beliefs that differ are usually addressed psychiatrically.  The law's a priori conditions include the almost unconditional requisite of almost everyone to have insurance by 2014, closing the gap for universal healthcare during that interim, and prevents insurers from capping their liability for a person's health care needs, a move which is expected to rectify medically induced bankruptcy, or the usual way to total a hospice or hospital check out. The CBO issued an estimation that the bill would reduce the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured by about 32 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the scope of the board on mortality (which actually does have an office and commitee) the legislation, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent in 2010 to about 94 percent by 2019. National health insurance Publicly-funded health care Single-payer health care Two-tier health care Universal health care:  Not Yet There have been a number of different health care reforms proposed during the Obama administration. The first of these reform proposals to be passed by the United States Congress is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which originated in the Senate of the 111th Congress, and passed the House of Representatives in an amended form on March 21, 2010 (with a vote of 219–212).President Obama signed the reforms into law on 23 March 2010. Key reform topics include post-operative wounds, corpulence, prevention and treatment of chronic conditions, defensive medicine (e.g., martial arts)or tort (judicial system) reform, incentives that reward more care (higher quantity of treatments and longer natural life span) instead of better care (an actual cure), redundant payment systems (recurring charges for the same problem or condition), tax policy (which affects ability to pay), rationing (which affects who is at the top of the organ recipient lists), a shortage of doctors  and nurses (usu. called staph infections which result in bedsores and are due to medical neglect and/or abuse), intervention (or coercion) vs. hospice (or medical isolation)and fraud (false claims and falsified treatments [malpractice]). Healthcare rationing in the United States exists in various forms. Access to private health care insurance is rationed based on price and ability to pay.  Healthcare, just like justice, is a commodity that is bought and sold. Those not able to afford a health insurance policy are unable to acquire one, even if those persons are full-time employees who have no health problems.  Furthermore, sometimes insurance companies pre-screen applicants for pre-existing medical conditions and either decline to cover the applicant or apply additional price and medical coverage conditions.  De facto, medical facilities can and do sometimes disclose the cause of death of an employee or applicant pre mortem.  Access to state Medicaid programs is restricted by income and asset limits via an analysis of the pragmatics of providing health care, under federal and state guidelines for eligibility. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) that commonly cover the bulk of the population, restrict access to treatment via capacity of the facilities. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010 and will prohibit insurers (HMOs both private and public) from limiting coverage to people in the future tense with preexisting conditions beginning in 2014, which will alleviate this type of medical experimentation and correctional rationing. Some in the media and academia have advocated rationing of care to limit the overall costs in the U.S. Medicare, Medicaid, and related social programs.  These entities argue that a proper rationing mechanism is more equitable and cost-effective.  The assignment of risks and of benefits in a world that does not have access to of knowledge for self-healing is like juggling mortality within a population.  The Congressional Budget Office, whose acronym is CBO, argued that healthcare costs are the initial determiner of governmental spending of tax revenues over the long-term, which means for the duration of that government.  The failure of a government to stand indefinitely is not the same as the failure of a people to exist.  For example, the Roman Empire ended with the decay of its social mores, codes, and practices.  The Roman Empire enjoyed Pax Romana for a long time, and some sources vary on the duration of the peace.