The Experts below are selected from a list of 159876 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lindsay F Wiley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The ACA shifted U.S. health policy from centering on principles of actuarial fairness toward social Solidarity. Yet four legal fixtures of the health care system have prevented the achievement of social Solidarity: federalism, fiscal pluralism, privatization, and individualism. Future reforms must confront these fixtures to realize social Solidarity in health care, American-style.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reflected a significant philosophical shift in the United States from distributing costs associated with sickness based on the principle of actuarial fairness toward a social Solidarity principle premised on the “goals of mutual aid and support.”[i] Yet four fixtures of American health care law complicate the translation of the Solidarity ethic into real-world outcomes: (1) federalism, (2) fiscal pluralism, (3) reliance on private ordering and private markets for health coverage, and (4) an emphasis on individual rights and personal responsibility. The ACA’s approach to operationalizing Solidarity insufficiently accounted for these fixtures. This ultimately limited its success and continues to threaten its durability, in ways laid bare by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. After tracing the philosophical evolution of health care law in the United States toward the ethic of social Solidarity, this article identifies four legal fixtures of the American health care system in tension with it. Assessing the degrees to which the ACA, Medicare-for-All, and public-option proposals confront these fixtures reveals trade-offs in policy design with which reformers hoping to enhance Solidarity must grapple. Health reform must navigate through the fixtures to effectuate an American version of social Solidarity in health care. Successfully charting this course may demand that reformers set their sights beyond the modest aim of universal coverage and embrace a broader health justice goal.[ii] Social Solidarity in health care requires more than just getting everyone covered in fragmented health insurance pools—it requires a commitment to mutual support and a sense that the benefits and burdens of illness and our system for treating and preventing it should be shared by all in a way that is fair and just. Though the four fixtures make the path toward social Solidarity in health care more challenging in the U.S., taking seriously the need to accommodate, leverage, or overcome the fixtures can help to build a mutually-funded health care system that is both durable and distinctively American. This article’s exposition of the fixtures of American health care law and the trade-offs they force in pursuit of social Solidarity offers a framework for discussion among lawmakers, policy advisers, scholars, researchers, and voters as they take the next steps in health reform.
Matthew B Lawrence - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The ACA shifted U.S. health policy from centering on principles of actuarial fairness toward social Solidarity. Yet four legal fixtures of the health care system have prevented the achievement of social Solidarity: federalism, fiscal pluralism, privatization, and individualism. Future reforms must confront these fixtures to realize social Solidarity in health care, American-style.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reflected a significant philosophical shift in the United States from distributing costs associated with sickness based on the principle of actuarial fairness toward a social Solidarity principle premised on the “goals of mutual aid and support.”[i] Yet four fixtures of American health care law complicate the translation of the Solidarity ethic into real-world outcomes: (1) federalism, (2) fiscal pluralism, (3) reliance on private ordering and private markets for health coverage, and (4) an emphasis on individual rights and personal responsibility. The ACA’s approach to operationalizing Solidarity insufficiently accounted for these fixtures. This ultimately limited its success and continues to threaten its durability, in ways laid bare by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. After tracing the philosophical evolution of health care law in the United States toward the ethic of social Solidarity, this article identifies four legal fixtures of the American health care system in tension with it. Assessing the degrees to which the ACA, Medicare-for-All, and public-option proposals confront these fixtures reveals trade-offs in policy design with which reformers hoping to enhance Solidarity must grapple. Health reform must navigate through the fixtures to effectuate an American version of social Solidarity in health care. Successfully charting this course may demand that reformers set their sights beyond the modest aim of universal coverage and embrace a broader health justice goal.[ii] Social Solidarity in health care requires more than just getting everyone covered in fragmented health insurance pools—it requires a commitment to mutual support and a sense that the benefits and burdens of illness and our system for treating and preventing it should be shared by all in a way that is fair and just. Though the four fixtures make the path toward social Solidarity in health care more challenging in the U.S., taking seriously the need to accommodate, leverage, or overcome the fixtures can help to build a mutually-funded health care system that is both durable and distinctively American. This article’s exposition of the fixtures of American health care law and the trade-offs they force in pursuit of social Solidarity offers a framework for discussion among lawmakers, policy advisers, scholars, researchers, and voters as they take the next steps in health reform.
Erin Fuse C Brown - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The ACA shifted U.S. health policy from centering on principles of actuarial fairness toward social Solidarity. Yet four legal fixtures of the health care system have prevented the achievement of social Solidarity: federalism, fiscal pluralism, privatization, and individualism. Future reforms must confront these fixtures to realize social Solidarity in health care, American-style.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reflected a significant philosophical shift in the United States from distributing costs associated with sickness based on the principle of actuarial fairness toward a social Solidarity principle premised on the “goals of mutual aid and support.”[i] Yet four fixtures of American health care law complicate the translation of the Solidarity ethic into real-world outcomes: (1) federalism, (2) fiscal pluralism, (3) reliance on private ordering and private markets for health coverage, and (4) an emphasis on individual rights and personal responsibility. The ACA’s approach to operationalizing Solidarity insufficiently accounted for these fixtures. This ultimately limited its success and continues to threaten its durability, in ways laid bare by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. After tracing the philosophical evolution of health care law in the United States toward the ethic of social Solidarity, this article identifies four legal fixtures of the American health care system in tension with it. Assessing the degrees to which the ACA, Medicare-for-All, and public-option proposals confront these fixtures reveals trade-offs in policy design with which reformers hoping to enhance Solidarity must grapple. Health reform must navigate through the fixtures to effectuate an American version of social Solidarity in health care. Successfully charting this course may demand that reformers set their sights beyond the modest aim of universal coverage and embrace a broader health justice goal.[ii] Social Solidarity in health care requires more than just getting everyone covered in fragmented health insurance pools—it requires a commitment to mutual support and a sense that the benefits and burdens of illness and our system for treating and preventing it should be shared by all in a way that is fair and just. Though the four fixtures make the path toward social Solidarity in health care more challenging in the U.S., taking seriously the need to accommodate, leverage, or overcome the fixtures can help to build a mutually-funded health care system that is both durable and distinctively American. This article’s exposition of the fixtures of American health care law and the trade-offs they force in pursuit of social Solidarity offers a framework for discussion among lawmakers, policy advisers, scholars, researchers, and voters as they take the next steps in health reform.
Wim Van Oorschot - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Economic Fluctuation and Shifts in Popular Solidarity with Unemployed People
Shifting Solidarities, 2020Co-Authors: Wilfred Uunk, Wim Van OorschotAbstract:Over the past decades, the social protection of unemployed people has been high on policy agendas of many welfare states. Here, we address the question how the Dutch general public’s Solidarity with the unemployed—in terms of the welfare benefits they would grant this group—has been influenced by economic developments and changes in unemployment rates over a longer time period. We analyse repeated cross-section data from the Netherlands (1975–2010). Our findings show that in times of higher unemployment people’s Solidarity with the unemployed is higher, while independently from that, in times of economic downturn Solidarity is lower. These macro-level effects vary only little across social groups, yet we do find that the unemployment rate affects people’s Solidarity more positively during economic good times.
-
going with the flow the effect of economic fluctuation on people s Solidarity with unemployed people
Social Indicators Research, 2019Co-Authors: Wilfred Uunk, Wim Van OorschotAbstract:Rising levels of unemployment in European welfare states have revived questions on the social protection of the unemployed and the people’s Solidarity with this claimant group. Does people’s Solidarity with the unemployed—in terms of the welfare benefits they would grant this group—decrease when the economy fares ill and unemployment is on the rise, or does Solidarity increase as many more people are at risk of losing their jobs? And, do changes in economic conditions and unemployment affect the Solidarity of all social groups alike, or are there differences with people’s socio-economic position? In this study, we address these questions using repeated cross-section data from the Netherlands in the period 1975–2010. Our multilevel analyses show that in times of higher unemployment people’s Solidarity with the unemployed is higher, while independently from that, in times of economic downturn Solidarity is lower. These macro-level effects vary only little across social groups, yet we do find that the unemployment rate affects people’s Solidarity more positively during economic good times. This indicates that people’s Solidarity with the unemployed depends, among others, on the specific macro-economic constellation of economic welfare and unemployment.
-
welfare state effects on social capital and informal Solidarity in the european union evidence from the 1999 2000 european values study
Policy and Politics, 2005Co-Authors: Wim Van Oorschot, Wil Arts, L C J M HalmanAbstract:English This article tests whether state-organised Solidarity substitutes social capital and informal Solidarity, based on recent data from the European Values Study. At country level, we find that welfare spending has a reinforcing effect on social capital and a negative substitution effect on informal Solidarity. At the individual level, there is also evidence for a substitution effect, since informal Solidarity is lower among people who live in countries that spend more on social protection. In addition, there is evidence of a ‘national burden’ effect, since informal Solidarity is lower among people who live in countries with an older population, with higher unemployment, and with a higher percentage of immigrants.
Elizabeth Y Mccuskey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The ACA shifted U.S. health policy from centering on principles of actuarial fairness toward social Solidarity. Yet four legal fixtures of the health care system have prevented the achievement of social Solidarity: federalism, fiscal pluralism, privatization, and individualism. Future reforms must confront these fixtures to realize social Solidarity in health care, American-style.
-
social Solidarity in health care american style
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Erin Fuse C Brown, Matthew B Lawrence, Elizabeth Y Mccuskey, Lindsay F WileyAbstract:The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reflected a significant philosophical shift in the United States from distributing costs associated with sickness based on the principle of actuarial fairness toward a social Solidarity principle premised on the “goals of mutual aid and support.”[i] Yet four fixtures of American health care law complicate the translation of the Solidarity ethic into real-world outcomes: (1) federalism, (2) fiscal pluralism, (3) reliance on private ordering and private markets for health coverage, and (4) an emphasis on individual rights and personal responsibility. The ACA’s approach to operationalizing Solidarity insufficiently accounted for these fixtures. This ultimately limited its success and continues to threaten its durability, in ways laid bare by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. After tracing the philosophical evolution of health care law in the United States toward the ethic of social Solidarity, this article identifies four legal fixtures of the American health care system in tension with it. Assessing the degrees to which the ACA, Medicare-for-All, and public-option proposals confront these fixtures reveals trade-offs in policy design with which reformers hoping to enhance Solidarity must grapple. Health reform must navigate through the fixtures to effectuate an American version of social Solidarity in health care. Successfully charting this course may demand that reformers set their sights beyond the modest aim of universal coverage and embrace a broader health justice goal.[ii] Social Solidarity in health care requires more than just getting everyone covered in fragmented health insurance pools—it requires a commitment to mutual support and a sense that the benefits and burdens of illness and our system for treating and preventing it should be shared by all in a way that is fair and just. Though the four fixtures make the path toward social Solidarity in health care more challenging in the U.S., taking seriously the need to accommodate, leverage, or overcome the fixtures can help to build a mutually-funded health care system that is both durable and distinctively American. This article’s exposition of the fixtures of American health care law and the trade-offs they force in pursuit of social Solidarity offers a framework for discussion among lawmakers, policy advisers, scholars, researchers, and voters as they take the next steps in health reform.
