In other words, the success of a company can be assessed, characterized and understood by the two main measures. To break, individual well-being is to answer the question: does allow society and encourage people to be reasonably well? Second, it allows the company and promote the welfare of all people from birth to death? For the latter, the most important component being of the population and, therefore, the success of the company, is the extent to which the sum of individual welfare creates collective welfare. The most important element of the health of the population has a high level of health of the population, measured by the number of people who are or have reasonable access to good.
The four scenarios below are an instant summary of existing health systems currently in the Western Hemisphere. The scenarios are based on the fact that the cost of health care is (with the purchase of a house) a the most expensive cost experience during their lifetime and expected that these costs will continue to rise over time as new treatment technologies and pharmaceuticals continue to drive costs. These four major health care approaches are:
1. No health programs (not free market)
2. Universally funded programs
3. The insurance company funded programs
4. Combinations of the above
Health these four approaches are summarized below in relation to how they represent the possibility of creating a successful partnership. Remember, a successful company is one that promotes, encourages and enables both individual and collective well-being, as measured by the health of the population.
1. No health programs: Countries that do not have health programs are generally lower than the average health of the population. While some members of the population in these societies (ie rich) who are able to pay for health care can be healthy indeed, the overall health of the population is often quite low. Importantly, socioeconomic status is usually a good indicator of the health of the population. In countries where there is no health care programs, and the reason for the absence of these programs is the lack of funding and the health of the general population is relatively low. Thanks to our definitions of social success, the success of these companies would be low, or no success.
2. The programs sponsored by the government: countries with universal health programs sponsored and funded by the government in general have a more collective health care that the level of other countries. Again, if the definition of the success of the entire population as the sum of total well-being of all individuals in this system, countries that offer health programs that collectively confer benefits in addition people are successfully applied by definition. As we can not be more than good, there is no incentive for individuals to access more services that are needed to be good. Leaving aside the prevention programs and the costs of social marketing as the main aspects of the general health of the population, health and well-being can be found in programs sponsored by the government, up to a certain level, depending on the overall need global population. Therefore, by definition, despite the incentives and disincentives in the system, companies that employ these systems are effective.
3. Insurance Company: health care programs sponsored by the insurance companies can work well, provided that the insurance coverage provided to all members of society with a blanket and at least basic coverage for serious diseases. No plans to get leukemia, or ALS, or meningitis, or lupus, for example. If they are well educated and have a position with health benefits to a company or to have a career or business successfully, then chances are you'll be able to pay for health care. However, as health care and profits are mixed in the same pot, there is a strong incentive to cheat or to create environments that replaces profit worry if both vying for supremacy - both as suggested in the film Michael Moore's Sicko. Active suppression or denial of health care is a logical and inevitable result of a controlled profit system, the attention of the insurance company - especially when the population ages. In addition, there is no compelling reason for insurance companies to cover those sensitive to high health costs (ie, those who have a catastrophic physical illness, mental illness, frail elderly, new mothers and children), and Point. The result of a system of this type would be a spiral in Category 1 - No health programs - (mediated by very few insurance companies) in which the wealthier sections of society would be able to access services. Ironically, the wealthiest citizens often need much less care than others. The bottom line is this: there is a growing disparity in the number of people who can access health care at the escalation of age and costs. We must question the current and future success of these social systems.
4. above combinations: Combinations of the above become extremely complex and difficult to assess. Certainly, there are advantages and disadvantages as well as the incentives and disincentives for a hybrid of the above systems. Each of these benefits and incentives (or lack of) are inextricably linked to socioeconomic class you and your family owns or is in transition as well as in a number of external and internal factors. A universal system funded by the government provides health care for all, including those who are disadvantaged and could not access care without subsidies. It also gives attention to those who are accused by some who abuse care (although it is not clear that this group could be like people do not consume unlimited time health care they are good). Alternatively, dominated by large insurance system offers a very high quality, appropriate care to those who can afford or are insured by companies that in turn can afford. This works well when the insured is reasonably healthy and young. A problem occurs when the employee population grow and insurance premiums are to be increased to cover the extremely high costs (insurance will cover the costs of health where the benefits of cost coverage calculated cost health care actuarially) or eliminated completely. Where there is no country health programs (assuming health care available) resulting costly services, but affordable for very little. No need to enter the obvious personal suffering and conflict in the latter system status.
To summarize the four systems analyzed:
1. The wealthiest members of society continue to receive care regardless of the system in place.
2. The poor will be hit hardest in cases where there is no system in place or insurance companies are the main arbiters of the delivery of health care.
3. The universal health care system funded by the government provides the largest number of individuals in society, despite the shortcomings.
4. Profit motive and links with incentives to limit the services and limits access becomes more common as you get older (and health benefits provided by employers usually become accessible).
5. The success of the company = with the possibility of good for the greatest number of people in society.
In conclusion, the success of a company correlated with the individual and collective well-being of society. society of well-being is inextricably linked to the overall health of the population within that society.
Companies that provide medical care to more people at a floor assembly (as opposed to the ceiling) in care (including the most oppressed and the destitute) succeed. A roof level of care is redundant when it comes to health, since, with the exception of only a very rare and unusual occurrences, people have access to health only up to the amount that will result in be. For example, unlike other products or services (for example, Ferraris, Rolex watches, massages, Gucci handbags), obtaining health care in excessive amounts is both redundant and ridiculous and contrary to human nature.
Therefore, it is reasonable to think that a health care system that provides the most in society (for example, around the world), the most vulnerable in society; as well as those on the higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and all the others could reasonably be argued as the most effective. For those who load or condemn a system that benefits all as ineffective or irresponsible and therefore not sustainable, it is important to consider where they fit into the landscape of the socio-economic health. Second, they are interested in the success of the company, the goal will be to move the company to success, or are their own interests - however justified - disguised as social success. You be the judge.
In essence, evangelism capitalism exclusion or minimization of social success, as measured by the health of the population is equivalent to "cut your nose despite your face."
Shane Busby, MBA, has health consultant based in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Shane has 16 years of experience in providing solutions to the business and health sectors. Shane is a lifelong learner; passionate about writing and teaching, particularly in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, OD / OB, development of strategy and change management.