The new changes in insurance policies have been a hot topic for the past year now. There is very little need to keep recounting the types of changes that have been made within the last year and the effects they have had on American society. Most Americans hardly qualify as “wealthy,” and many students and professionals that deal with health and society now understand that the majority of the nation’s population is now made up of older people due to the baby boom that took place after World War II. This means that many college students in these fields will be concerned with helping the elderly. But what about the standards of medical insurance today versus the corresponding distribution of wealth in America?
Sadly, the results do not match up. According to Michael Norton’s 2011 wealth distribution study that went viral on YouTube , research statistics show that the top five percent of the nation possess 74.2 percent of the nation’s total wealth, while the poorest do not even possess one percent. The middle class possesses a total of 16 percent of the nation’s wealth, at best. The actual distribution of wealth is not even close to what most Americans think it is, and even further from the ideal distribution of wealth.
Now, we must consider the populations that were hit hardest by the changes in insurance policies in the U.S. — people with disabilities and the elderly. With the distribution of wealth in mind and a basic knowledge of medical expenses, is it fair to assume this population is able to get access to the care it needs? Basically, is this population wealthy enough in this society?
In most cases, it is safe to say they are not. Insurance companies such as Medicaid and Medicare are supposed to be around to help aid people in these scenarios that cannot afford more quality insurance. However, with recent changes, these companies deny their previous consumer’s service left and right due to household income being too high. In most cases, their consumers are not even allowed to receive an income sufficient enough to buy groceries or pay rent. This puts many people in a bind as well as the company itself.
The cost of living is high in American society. There have been studies looking into the effects these new rules have. Whether or not these companies are fulfilling their purpose, good health for all, is unclear. If a disabled person can still work part-time to supply groceries for themselves, they are better off than they would be sitting at home. These insurance companies were originally in place to help them pick up what they could not quite cover — medical expenses. Some scholars believe that, rather than helping the elderly and disabled, these new rules are more in favor of the unemployed population. In short, the fixed income rule makes it easier for those who do not want to work, not the target audience.
As future professionals and consumers in the fields of medicine and insurance, some students are beginning to consider what can be done to determine who is truly in need of these services and who is not. This will help our society adjust to itself. One thing has to give, and in this case, it will have to be either the uneven distribution of wealth or the way society handles health care.
