Economic Impact of Current Healthcare Reform
The 2008 presidential election in united states has became a turning for attaining a comprehensive health care reform The aim of the policy debate was to introduce a federal program for majority of the uninsured Americans to buy and manage the health care system. However, critics point out that the most important path towards attaining a universal coverage was not followed. They propose that the plan should have expanded the existing Medicaid so as to cover the biggest portion of Americans who are uninsured. The target group for the proposed bill is made to net Americans whose incomes level fall below the 350% mark of the federal poverty level. The bill automatically requires people with high incomes to be automatically covered and buy into Medicaid.
Attempts to enact the universal coverage failed in the past because interested groups in the business and the insurance industry opposed the move. Another blow came from the reform opponents who always took advantage of anti – government ethos. The political institutions in United States systems are such that it makes it hard to enact comprehensive legislation. The system provides stringent checks and balances that make it very possible for opponents to block any changes on any piece of legislation. The medical health care system has become one of the most successful bills in the United States history. It is of great interest to not that the factors that led to the defeated of President Bill Clinton’s proposal for a similar health care coverage have became the same factors that have encouraged the 2008 heath care plan.
The bill is faced with numerous challenges such as the question of paying the bill mainly midst the current economic crisis.
The history of the Universal Health Care
The campaign for universal health care has been a subject of controversy that has stretched for nearly a century in the US. At different times of the U.S. history the draft almost showed signs of succeeding only to be defeated during its last stage. These efforts have continually evolved thus becoming an intriguing lesson in determining American history, ideology, and character.
During the period between the late 1800’s to 1912.the American government took no action to subsidize voluntary funds and make sick insurance compulsory to everyone. The federal chose to leave the matter to the federal governments which in turn left the issue to the states. On its, side the states left them to the private sector and other interested voluntary programs.
During the late 19th or early 20th century, United States had set aside some voluntary funds that to be provided to members in the case of sickness or death. During the Progressive Era, attempts by reformers to introduce a bill that would improve the social conditions of the workers were introduced. Theodore Roosevelt supported the health insurance bill he was very confident that no country would be strong if its people are sick and poor. However, his successors were conservatives and kept postponing the important social welfare.
In 1915, a model bill on health insurance was drafted which limited its coverage to the working class and other middle earners with dependants. The bill introduced a sick pay, benefits during maternity time, and a death benefit with the help of physicians, nurses, and hospitals. The cost was shared among workers, employers, and the state. The health insurance plan never got full support and the American Federation of Labor president denounced compulsory health insurance. The opposing group argued that the system was to be a government based insurance system that would weaken unions since the government had the central role in providing social benefits to its citizens.
The bill in the early 20th century was as well being opposed by the commercial insurance industry. The working class feared a “pauper’s burial,” which was the backbone of insurance business. The pauper’s burial was a policy that assisted the working class families by paying their death benefits and helped in funeral expenses.
In 1917, the US government was enrolled in the WWI and anti-German fever. The government issued articles denouncing the “German socialist insurance.” Another error was the inclusion of the funeral benefit that threatened the structure of the commercial life insurance industry.
In the 1920, the debate awoke again but with a change of its nature, it aimed at shifting from stabilizing incomes to expanding access to medical care by financial it. It was at the same period when the cost of health care began rising because the middle class that had been locked out began to use hospital services to access health services and for this reason hospital costs started to increase. The rise in medical care costs became a big item in family budget than any other form of wage losses making it a matter that required government control.
During Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) tenure that was characterized by WWI, the Great Depression, and the New Deal. The Social Security Bill big was part of his plan. Critics thought that the Great Depression was the perfect conditions to push and pass the a compulsory health insurance in America but this was not to be because most of the Americans were forced out of work by the harsh economic conditions, unemployment took the centre stage followed by old age benefits. FDR’s Committee feared including the health insurance in its bill because it threatened the successful passage of the Social Security legislation in totality. For this reason the health care bill was excluded. All this took place in1935.
The Wagner Bill of 1939 was the second FDR’s attempt. FDR never gave the bill all the required support, the national health program was to be funded by federal grants and was to be administered by states and localities. Later the Wagner Bill evolved and became a proposal for federal grants for national health insurance. In 1943, the bill proposed a compulsory national health insurance. Though the bill faced opposition from whom antagonists launched a scathing attack. In 1946, the Republicans took office and showed no interest in enacting national health insurance. Though the bill got government backing it was still defeated.
The Path from President Obama to Congress and Into Law
After many years of failed attempts to enact the health care reform, President Obama finally signed it into legislation on March 23, 2010. The system is meant to overhaul the nation’s health care system and it guarantees medical access to tens of millions of Americans who had remained uninsured.
Within two days later, the House and Senate completed finalized on the bill by making fixes to the bills. Though the Republicans, voted against the bill but in vain, they have vowed to challenge it in court. The bill signed to law provide medical coverage to slightly over 30 million people who currently lacked it. The passage of the bill has placed and assures president Obama as an historical American president whose success was in the nation’s health care system where others, tirelessly tried and failed. The law is set to cost the united states government about $938 billion within 10 years, though it is estimated that the federal deficit will be reduced by $138 billion within the same period of time.
The path was not smooth all the way because efforts to jeopardize his efforts were evident, such as the filling of the Senate seat in Massachusetts. This sit deprived the Democrats of the 60th vote required to block a Republican from achieving their goal. The president strategy turned to using budget reconciliation to push the bill through.
In conclusion, the healthcare bill in my opinion fits into the Obama administration’s economic strategy among the other plans undertaken. Though, the United States is a wealthy, industrialized nation, it had not ensured universal health coverage for its citizens. But since after the bill was signed to law. Some of the issues facing serious debate include the questions of access, efficiency, quality, and its sustainability. The shared cost either direct or hidden results to a shared lower costs and improve quality. One big challenge in implementing the US healthcare reform is that it does not have direct benefit to the insurance companies and other private health care industry.
The health care bill in my opinion is the greatest achievement the Obama administration has been able to achieve so far and shall go to history books as the biggest achievement of the time.
Impact of Current Healthcare Reform: Economic, Physician and the Private Sector
The United States healthcare reform program will greatly influence the private entity in economic terms because they have greatly been aimed at reducing the cost of medical coverage in the country. In addition, the physicians will also be affected by the impact of the new regulations and requirements in the reforms. Healthcare coverage and the efficiency of the system are major issues to consider in the advent of high exposure to diseases and illnesses characterized by rising cases of diseases such as HIV/Aids, throat and chests infections, cancers, and ulcers among others. Healthcare system must provide a degree of security as pertaining access to medication to reduce deaths and levels of mortality. The impact of healthcare reforms, whatsoever, must focus on the reduction of the costs of medication, increased population coverage-whether by private practitioners or by public system, as well as boosting the efficiency of the system. In fact, quality has been a concern in the services provided, in addition to the issues of high cost of coverage and high number of people not covered. The seriousness of the matter can be indicated by the fact that in 2007, 20% of the American population-representing 59 million people went without or delayed medical care (Cunningham & Felland, 2008). These difficulties indicate how necessary the healthcare system is to the health status of the American people. Entry of the private sector into the insurance business was viewed as a cause for increased costs. There have been proposals for reform challenging the place of the private sector in the business. There have been debate whether the private sector in the insurance should receive a tighter regulation, or whether there should be established a public system to compete with the private sector (Curfman, Stephen, Debra, and Jeffrey, 2009).
United States’ healthcare system has been faced with so many challenges among them rising medical insurance coverage costs, and there have been conflicting points of views on how these challenges should be approached. Although one of the most challenging issues in the healthcare concern has been raising costs incurred for the healthcare, there are other issues such as low coverage of citizens with healthcare insurance. One clear thing is that many of the resulting problems about coverage have arisen because of the rising cost of coverage. There have been attempts in history aimed at alleviating these healthcare challenges including such innovative ideas such as managed care. Other proposed attempts have focused on single-payer systems instead of the current system which has much coverage and payment options-one of the issues considered as leading to high costs of healthcare. In this paper, I look into the proposed reforms in the healthcare sector, their possible effects on the healthcare system and especially the private practice sector, as well as their impacts on the physicians. It would be expected that the urban people have more options available to them between the public and private coverage options than the rural people and therefore influence of these options would impact on them differently.
Healthcare Reform Components
The American healthcare system is considered as a complex one because of shortcomings in coverage and costs. The healthcare system has had both private and the public players in the market. The healthcare reform agenda has focused on issues of reducing the costs of medication and the healthcare coverage or expenditure in general, and the number of people that needs to be covered. Efforts have been geared towards achieving coverage for all Americans, and a system that empowers them to access low medical costs especially in the rural areas as compared to the urban places. This is because urban areas are better in terms of the amount of health facilities located there than in the rural areas. Historical reforms in the healthcare system have had impacts on the private practice as well as the physicians in terms of regulations governing the latter, and the financial benefits of the former. Decline in private practices was recorded in the 1988-1989 following a diversification of practice settings which has been described as dramatic (Kalman and Goldstein, 1998). Thus, there is need to ensure that reforms should not negatively impact on the private sector such as to lead in denial of coverage for many more Americans as well as eliminating the competition that makes prices come down and the level of the quality of services offered is higher. CBO analyzed the possible resultant effects of the healthcare insurance premiums as a result of the reforms. It was posited by the institution that it was difficult to disentangle the factors affecting the premiums because the factors were complex and interrelated (Green, 2009). The impacts would also be greatly influenced by increasing of healthcare insurance demands as a result of expansion of the healthcare insurance. CBO proposed a minimal (as much as possible) impacts on the premium as a result of reforms. The private sector, according to CBO, would incur an increase of 10-13% in the premiums before any governmental subsidies. The new non-group policies featured in the healthcare reforms would lead to an increase of 10-13% in average premium per person in 2016, if the law was implemented. It was estimated that the reforms would result in average premium per policy of roughly $5500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies in the same year, for the non group market. This would represent an increase of $300 and $2100 the law before the reforms. The change in the premiums per person as would have resulted in the proposed law, would introduce an increase in the premiums for the group coverage in the same year (1% increased to 2% reduction) (Green, 2009).
The reforms introduced in the previous system that allowed single as well as market payer, would see the intermediation of the private with the public plan through the Health Insurance Exchange. Individuals would acquire a qualification to any private option if they attained a certain financial status, whereas those who did not remained covered through the public option of the Health Insurance Exchange. The healthcare reforms were proposed this year were set to become law through the adoption of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The proposals would lead to minimal costs but with possible damaging effects such as denial of expanded coverage of healthcare insurance since it limits the practice of the private sector.
The proposed law allowed the continuation of individuals to purchase insurance coverage from the employer, a major conservation from the current practice. Those who were uninsured or self-employed could purchase insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange (Levin, 2009). The reforms has been criticized for failing to focus on the improving on the current malpractice laws and tort that have for a long time affected the delivery of services and impacted on physician practice. The reform agenda has visualized in the reduction of the overall costs of healthcare. Although there have been feelings that the private sector’s role in the healthcare system needed be controlled through stringent legal provisions, there has been proposal that the public and the private providers needed to work together in order to deliver an efficient healthcare plan (Novelli, 2009). This is in consideration with the important role played by both in the healthcare reforms. Furthermore, the consideration of the role played by physicians in the delivery of service is necessary to reducing medical errors, work burden, fatigue amidst shortage of professionals such as the nurses. The idea of balancing between the public and the private sectors’ roles in the healthcare system is very important. Yet this seems to have been ignored in the current reforms mainly aimed at reducing the cost of coverage and increasing the number of those covered.
Impacts of Reforms on the Private Sector
Reforms have focused mainly on the reduction of the costs of insurance in terms of the premiums in the public option domain, so that the private sector would also lower the cost to remain competitive. There have been contrasting arguments whether the current reforms in the healthcare sector are favorable to the private sector. Considering the role of the private sector in the provision of healthcare services such as insurance in the midst of low public sector role n history, it is important to make sure that every reform results in the good of public. One way of ensuring that the transition is smooth, is making sure that the needs of the private sector are put into consideration, rather than viewing the sector as undeserved. Increasing costs of healthcare has rendered the private sector less competitive in the global market place. Because the current reforms of the healthcare have focused on the domination and improvement of a public option to healthcare coverage, possible results of these reforms would be to depopulate the private insurance firms. However, there has been an argument that this could result in poorer healthcare as a result of loss of competition in the system and the resulting high population in the public healthcare sector. The private sector is dominant in the urban than in the rural areas and therefore would suffer more by deteriorating private coverage. The government would also choose to capitalize on the rural areas which have lower numbers of people with insurance coverage.
There is evidence that although the reform could help in coverage issues, it fell short in falling to actually reduce costs of healthcare. In addition, because the private and the public sectors advance in various interests in some case, the whole system would be damaged by the oppression of the private sector through legal provisions. Introduction of reforms that seek to limit competition of the public with the private sector will reduce the extent to which medical interventions are provided or reduce the number of healthcare facilities that is useful to providing health for more and more Americans. It has been posited that the public sector seeks to concentrate on understanding diseases rather than health, more than the private sector which concentrates on understanding of health (Novelli, 2009). Private firms have played a very important role in the research and development because they are privately funded. They have been able to supplement the public sector, especially through focusing on interventions rather than prevention. While the government seems suited n the provision of the prevention medicine, the private sector can play a vital role in the healthcare system by investing in provision of short-term interventions. This is because they are geared towards the realization of profit. There has been an argument that low-premiums offered by the government would likely cause other plans out of the market because of lack of competitiveness. This would impact the healthcare sector because the number of facilities would need to be compensated for. Owing to the monopolistic nature in the market as a result of this development, the private sector would loose competitiveness in terms of fixing reimbursement rates and the quality of services provided would deteriorate. Another possible alternative strategy for the private players would be to reduce the payment to providers as they are forced to reduce their premiums. It should be considered that introducing a favorable option to coverage may influence the services in that the companies offering employer-based insurance cover may end up choosing the public option, and this would reduce the available options to the public as the private companies pull out. Limited options to the public would influence the provisions of the services on a latter date as a result of the aforementioned monopolistic effects. In addition, the private sector will lose in terms of the total amount of incomes resulting to the premiums because it would be left with fewer people.
The burden of the healthcare has manifested partly from the arising bad debts as patients sometimes choosing the private options are unable to pay. In fact the problem of bad debts is less or more comparable to the problem of lack of coverage. Thus having a system that is more favorable towards a public cheaper option will reduce the overall costs incurred in terms of bad debts as those not able to pay for the private option will go for the cheaper public option. The private sector will benefit in terms of reduction of the responsibilities to take care for the people who cannot afford it.
Impacts on Physicians
The quality of services that have for a longtime formed a debate in healthcare sector seems not yet resolvable through the current reforms. Quality of healthcare services provided to patients by physicians is of paramount importance to minimizing death rates and cases of complications. Low attendance has already been reported in scenarios of less number of nurses and increasing demand for healthcare services as the number of cases of illnesses and diseases and the population continue to rise. Evidence exists that reform in the healthcare sector would result in several people choosing the public insurance care option because of the low premiums, and this could result in overcrowding of the public insurance sector. Thus quality of services offered in this case would decrease as the role of the private sector in serving the masses continue to depreciate. The physician therefore will have more burden than before therefore increasing the amount of such risks as quitting the profession as a result of failure to cope with possible new challenges at workplace, such as more additional time to work. Attending more patients leads to increased exposure to diseases such as communicable diseases, back injuries and fatigue. Therefore, the impact of eliminating or decreasing the role of the private sector will partly manifest in terms of the increasing burden to the physicians to attend to the ever increasing demand for healthcare services. The impact would mainly be felt in the rural areas because the government would shift focus of the public coverage more on the rural masses that have lower coverage for insurance. Thus deterioration of the services of the public healthcare insurance coverage would influence more on the rural areas than the urban areas.
Impact of physicians following the adoption of the current reforms has been negative as well as positive. Another area of interest on reforms that has emerged is the lack of the reform agenda to capture on a number of issues. Shortcomings within the reforms therefore will not be understood in the benefits and disadvantages of the proposed changes, but also on the basis of the resultant of the failure to include some aspects of the reforms that would be desirable. The need to utilize physicians as the major components of reform agenda has been focused. Reforms in the healthcare would impact on the practice of physicians either directly and indirectly. Physicians have largely supported the current reforms in the healthcare system but have expressed concerns which could reveal their discontent with these reforms. Tort law malpractice law reform has not been captured yet in the reforms, and this could have resulted in speeding treatment, cutting down defensive medicine as well as reducing malpractice costs.
The improvement on the amount of time available for physicians to attend to their patients has resulted from the fact that lesser time will be spent in unnecessary bureaucracies and procedures. Further reform however could result in improved access to physicians, improved supply of primary care among others. There are advantages that would accrue by favorable public option that offers very low premiums. Forcing the private sector to pull out would in part help by reducing the amount of administrative paper work that the physicians would handle. This would improve the efficiency of the system in that the same number of staff would serve more customers than before. The physicians would be influenced to reject patients in cases where the cost of care is more than the payment. This is as a result of low reimbursements being offered to physicians in the public insurance plan.
The importance of the healthcare system amidst increasing risk of diseases and illnesses cannot be ignored. However, many people have chosen to remain without insurance coverage as a result of lack of affordability. This has increased the risk of death and complication of cases of diseases and illnesses. About 59 million people stayed without or delayed medical care in 2007. The healthcare system in the United States has been faced with several criticisms regarding the number of people it has not provided insurance coverage, quality of services provided and the cost of medication. These three issues have led to implementation of changes aimed at alleviating them. There have been a number of attempts in this focus. Solutions proposed and implemented include managed care. Options and reforms have been met with a number of challenges and many have been faulted on various basis. The current reforms in the healthcare sector have focused on offering a cheaper public option of coverage in order to alleviate a number of problems. This would influence the private insurance sector to reduce their premiums in order to remain competitive. There has been expressed discontentment as well as contentment over these reforms. One, the reforms may lead to the slow death of the public insurance sector as they struggle to remain competitive by lowering their premiums and loose customers. The private sector has been known to play a very important role in the healthcare sector: they tend to invest in interventions rather than prevention mechanisms and substitute the public sector in serving the public. Reducing the role of the private sector would result in overburdening of the public sector and therefore the physicians. The issues that were on focus, such as the need for providing quality healthcare services would therefore manifest. There has already been reported low quality of services as a result of shortage of profession in the healthcare sector. This has been as a result of increase in demand for the healthcare services as population grows, amidst decreasing number of professions. Professions have had to quit because of the increasing challenge in the healthcare, and therefore the problem would worsen as the private sector which would have substituted by offering healthcare services deteriorate. In addition, high populations of the number choosing the public insurance option would increase bureaucracy and decrease the time required for physicians to attend to the patients. Further, the role of the private sector in ensuring the public has insurance and healthcare option would be compromised. The public sector may end up assuming a monopolistic player role in the market and this would compromise on the quality of health provided and reduction of the total number of people covered by insurance.
However, the reduced costs of healthcare insurance coverage would result in minimization of the burdens encountered by the private sector in terms of bad debts because some people are unable to pay. A good healthcare system will be a resultant of focus of the importance of both the public and the private sector. The importance of the two sectors in ensuring quality services (via competition) must not be ignored.
Over the last decade the social movement has been inspired and propelled forward despite radical opposition from different parties. Although the social movement has been marred with lot of challenges, this is mostly especially in the health care which has been confronted with myriad means that have institutionalized all form of oppression and has been embedded in the nation’s financial and social foundations.
However, with the consideration of the social movement history or the changes from below in the reform process, there has been demand for universal health care programs that has influenced these form radical reforms (Derickson, 1994). However, major reform campaigns for national health care in the 20th century has been executed by the elite, they were mainly concerned with defeating the attacked launched by the interest groups rather than the welfare of the population. However, through this drives the health care movement also gained popularity and the transformation was commenced after the drives turned to movement that led to the universal health care reforms.
The health care reforms have seen a lot of radical changes that has even influenced the new amendment by the new president Barrack Obama Health Bill Act. There has been other recommendable improvement on the health care although in the United State this sector is marred and deterred implementation by the political involvement. The political atmosphere has taken this social movement into choke hold using it as a means to gain political millage. This has created a gap between the health care reformers and the elite (politicians and other interested elite parties), the result has left the reform movement with a lot of issues like lack of knowledge, popular exclusion of reform constituencies, lack of grassroots health drives and strategies and lack of reproductive feminist rights and AIDS drugs followed by many limitation that dissuades reforms in the health care reforms. However, in the areas that there has been credible achievement it has been politically feasible than from the radical reforms that are lodged by the social movement reformers of national health care (Guigni, Et al. 1999).
Usually sociological theories are usually referred to as very intricate hypothetical and mechanical scheme that is utilized in the explanation and analyzing of subjects of the social edification. When conducting sociological theories the use of theory is mainly to inform discussion through epistemological as the most valid method of execution (Shilling, 1993).
Functionalism theory impact on Health care
Functionalism theory mainly addresses how society facets need to integrate in the workforce so that they may perform fully as a whole. According to Hoffman (2002) this theory ascertains that every society facets are mutually dependent and abet in the society performance as one unit. The best example is that the state offers health care to the children of the society and they in turn pay taxes which keeps the states functional. This is also that the society is dependant on the health care institutions for the good health of their children to grow and have good jobs that would in turn raise and sustain their own families, they will in the process be paying taxes that the state is dependant.
This theory impact the health care in curing and assisting in maintaining good health of the functioning of the society and individuals. This theory however can make incurable conditions and disability that are normally classified as just sick appear to be deviant. The impact that this theory has on the link between disability and social deviance support the governance of proficiently restricted health care services for the disabled group. Under this theory there are variants that underlie programs which allege to facilitate devalued groups (disabled) to live ethnically appreciated lives. This theory confuses injury and disability within the scope of the sick roles; this is done by failing to distinguish that disabled person have nothing wrong but only produces biased norms and values, instead of tackling the economics and cultural implication that impulsive them (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004).
Conflict theory impact on Health care
Conflict theory usually hub on the capability of some people to rule over others or have the capability of resisting such dominance. This theory addresses how emotional symptoms and individual mannerism are intricate elucidation to the conflict of the mind. This theory impact health care reforms when the politician are deviance to reforms that are advocated by interested parties or reformers. This capability of the politician to rule over the reformers because they have superiority has been met though with deviant by the activist that have been advocating for radical changes in this sector (Foweraker & Landman, 1997). However, the politician have adapted an adaptive model that balances the conflict by offering less adaptive elucidation and this they use to confuse the population that they have devised means for a proper health care reforms.
Siding with the reformist conflict theory allows each reforming organization to perform on their own to facilitate the reform struggles which would benefit the overall change in the revolutionary of the health care reforms in the united state. This theory is usually applied when addressing conflict between health care reformers and politicians. This theory differentiates individual role from the whole society roles. This is well elaborated by how a single politician (elite) dictates the outcome of thousand peoples. The health care movement is controlled by the elite who dictate how the reforms shall be executed, the society is then supposed to offer support to this kind of dictatorship for they are the one that put them in power. However, if the society or the reformer obstructs the elite then they are considered deviant and the elite tries to oppress them so that they may retain power through oppression. Conflict theory is impacted in health care reform by reformist who struggle with the government to achieve what is good for the community (Hoffman, 2002).
Interactionism theory impact on Health care
Interactionism theory is mainly concerned with as a basis for the whole society the analysis of the people interface. This are the symbols and details that are in our everyday life what they signify and the occurrences in our lives. In health care interactionism theory is relevant in addressing patient with terminal illness mostly mentally. Derickson (1994) asserts that this is in the sense that the patient views him/herself the way the society views them, when they perceive them as being mentally and physically handicapped they coin this perception and view themselves being this way. This is the same way that the society are made to view that reform in health care is hard to achieve and they should be contend with the little effort made by the elite, and they actually comply because the elite make them feel inferior.
Similarities of the Sociological theories
There is very little similarity between the three sociological theories the only objective that these three theory harbors that may have similarity are the result that is required to be gained from the analysis. This is because all the theories are critics that criticize each other and also the subject they are analyzing. Thus it is right to say that the only similarity that this have is that they are convoluted imaginary and perfunctory schemes which are devised for the explanation and analyzing of subjects of the social learning (Parsons, 1991).
Differences of the Sociological theories
There is a wide gap in differences between the sociological theories, this is usually accounted for because the goals and objectives of the three theories are negating. First and foremost functionalism theory which is also known as the positivism fosters an account that is usually a positive one which is also fostered little by interactionism theory, however conflict theory or critic theory refutes this claims by the other theories (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). This usually aligned this way that the v functionalism theory is appraising the society while conflict theory is blaming the society for the things that are happening, interactionism theory then tries to observe the reasons that may be affected the society. Interactionism theory tries to comprehend while the other theories trying to revolutionize and other praising the society for the changes that they seem that are fit for the community. Thus the fundamental differences that are fisted by the three sociological theories are trying to revolutionize and trying to comprehend.
Usually functionalism theory has been accredited with defending the status quo and the positive facets of the society which aid to stabilize it, where else conflict theory put up a resistance on the status quo. From these facets interactionism theory enters and tries to understand the basic factors that generate micro-level interaction and neglects macro social structures and thus the name symbolic interactionist is offered (Shilling, 1993).
How the Sociological theories affects the views of the individual in the health care
Usually sociological theories usually identifies the effect which makes it possible for individual for be fit in living in the society. This has been the key idea in the 20th century in the domination of the American society; in this state this has been conformed to health care reformist to achieve the desired outcome of their demands. The sociological theory has been used to add value to the human lives, like basically in the U.S there has been development that were designed to comprehend a society theoretically that would be responsible for modernity emergence which they had to centralize on socialization as the major component. The major interest was mainly to try and evaluate the distinctive affiliation of the society and the individual (Hoffman, 2002).
Sociological theories prepares the individual for all the major responsibilities that they will participate in the reforming of the health care, this provides them with appropriate beliefs, values and habit, and incorporate them with the best emotional retort guide with compatible insight approach, they are further equipped with the essential expertise and knowledge. So that the communication does not discontinue then the sociological theories offers individual with stability and perseverance. In the health care there has been discrimination against individualism and this has been diffused by the sociological theories that have incorporated these facets with excessive approval into modern health care system (Guigni, Et al. 1999).
How the Sociological theories affect the approach of health care social change
There has been accredited series of cultural and social changes that has been associated with raise in the health care system. There is long history of the American health care; however the most tremendous socio-economic and technical change that has been recorded since the nineteenth century is the emergence of the health care system. The marketing of the health care system has been accredited with the well being of the society in the United State, this has been appraised for bringing radical changes in the society as now the society are able to afford health care services which were in the 18th century are very costly affair. The social change brought about by this factor have been also spread in other sectors of economics development this is because now the population are healthy and they can be able to give back to the government by working more and generating income which the government taxes and gain finances that sustains them (Parsons, 1991).
The social changes that have been effected by sociological theories input on health care has had high value to the society in general. This is viewed by sociologist as the key feature to proper approach of modernity in good health of the society. This is usually accredited with the cultivation of the health care system designed to promote health consciousness and self expression of reformed agendas. According to Tarrow (1994) the key element that promotes this transition is the fact that there is transformation from tradition top modern form of social relations; this is where social changes are not limited by the rules of the traditional community lifestyle, but are governed by a different approach of health care social change. There recently has been demand for medical attention on the society and this has even entered into the cosmetic division where nowadays society is using health care system for beautification all this has been enacted through social changes in the health care system.
Social movement has been accredited with numerous achievements in the health care reforms. Through sociological theories there has been exploration of new ideology that helps understand the society stand on health care. The hospice approach that this study has taken has helped revolutionize the health care reform and achieve major objectives that could not have been achieved because of political oppression. New theories minds, pain and bodies has been evaluated to achieve a positivist solution that favors individual and society at large. These approaches has helped elevate the life of the human race nor only in America but globally through management and research.