Fisher House Foundation
The Fisher House Foundation is by far one of the most notable and appreciated institution in the American nation. This is highly attributed to its humanitarian services based on the importance of the family unit towards the military and veteran affairs personnel during their treatment programs. The plan identifies with the extraordinary sacrifice that the military and veteran personnel have accorded to America, often involving on one extreme end the risk of death for the sake of the nation’s welfare (Fisher House Foundation, Inc., 2010). Affected military players and veterans injured during their lines of duty are mandated special care that is accorded in military hospitals and health care facilities that are located in all states. The Fischer Houses are duly located within these facilities to support the families of the recuperating patients with accommodation for the purposes of ensuring quick recovery within the support of the family members. Notably, the accommodation is accorded in equal terms to all needy families devoid of nay charges. I, as any other American citizen, am proud of the Fisher initiative and commend the foundation for this inexplicable program. This said however, I would like to entreat you towards the institution of a Fisher home in the State of Montana, as one amongst the most alienated regions within the program.
Currently, the Fisher homes have covered twenty states within the American continent and the Germany region. The number of homes in each region is determined in a discriminative manner, spread over logistic matters such as the number of families served within a medical facility and geographical region, the size of the state and the costs of instituting the homes. The latter however plays a less significant role in the determination of the homes location. However, the distribution of the Fisher Homes does not necessarily align to the identified pattern. For instance, although Texas enjoys the highest number of Fisher homes, its military and veteran casualties are low as compared to regions like California, New York, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Missouri. The concentration of military healthcare centers within the mentioned regions is twenty-three, nineteen, eighteen, thirteen, thirteen, twelve and ten respectively (Tricare Military Health System, 2008). Inferentially, this is reflective of the high number of patients received within each region. Contrastingly, the same regions have a varied number of Fisher homes with California having four, New York one, Florida five, Maryland two, Massachusetts one, Virginia two, and Missouri one.
This stands in sharp contrast to the State of Texas has enjoyed the highest number of Fisher Houses amounting to six accommodation facilities with its military health center being only one establishment. The criterion therefore infused in the location of these homes is the geographical one notably initially within regional aspects, before a comprehensive coverage can be accorded to the other regions. The eastern part of America has had the most comprehensive coverage in the program with as evidenced by the location of neighboring states like Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Washington (Fisher House Foundation, Inc., 2010). However, the other regions, especially the north has only two house locations in Minnesota and Washington. It therefore follows the rule that, an affected veteran or military official located in Montana has to travel over various states if they are to enjoy the services of a Fisher House. Note that, the most nearest locations with Fisher Houses from Montana are Washington, California, and Minnesota. These translate to high costs that are measured in both tangible and intangible aspects (Jacobs and John 47). Tangible costs are those noted in monetary measures and these consist majorly of transport and feeding charges. Intangible costs are signaled by factors such as time and fatigue associated to such long journeys.
These factors tend to impart a high level of constraint in the program and with the issue of enhanced living costs facing the nations currently it becomes an unfeasible option to the affected families. Forgoing the aspect of according family support to the military and veteran patients at such points in their lives tends to be very significant. Additionally, the patient may be barred by the medical practitioners from taking such an option due to the health state and this would lead to the same detrimental effect to the family and to the ailing individual (Biank 196). The regional coverage plan is an excellent idea yet it is highly limited with regard to effectuality within the northern region. This aspect is further weakened by the strategic plans laid by the home managers, the American government, with regard to expansion. Presently, three home constructions are in progress in Washington DC, Georgia and Alaska. Upon the completion of the homes in these three regions, the focus will shift to Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas (Fisher House Foundation, Inc., 2010). Note that, some of these constructions will be additional homes to the existing establishments, for instance, Georgia, Texas and Virginia reviewing the number upwards to two, seven and three respectively. The strategy is highly discriminative in a nation that prides itself in equitable treatment and justice to its citizens.
Washington DC although acquiring its first Fisher Home establishment does not fall within the high priority margin as it is located within the eastern region that has the most comprehensive coverage of the aid homes. Nine regions namely California, Washington, Nevada, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Utah and North Carolina have been listed as needy regions and thereby necessitated to high precedence upon the completion of the current and pending structure locations (Fisher House Foundation, Inc., 2010). These homes have concentrated mainly on the western and eastern regions with the west and north being most affected in the futuristic plans. The distance between Wisconsin and Montana is still huge and therefore the inclusion of a Fisher Home in the location would still not address the costs and travelling issues. The residents of Washington State will receive another Fisher Home and for this, we are grateful, as it will increase the number of institutions given towards this humanitarian cause. However, the government should also be conscious of the fact that this new establishment may highly not make sense to residents of Montana since it doest not affect their welfare positively. They may not even take note of the new resource as residents of Oregon or Idaho would due to simplicity of accessibility, although this also depends on the proximity of the state locations.
Establishing a Fisher home in Montana will however be a direct impact on the resident of the mentioned state. War veterans and military personnel will be positively influenced by the institution mainly through the family aspect as close members can easily reach the affected and accord the necessary support for a quick recovery. With both tangible and intangible costs compromised by the establishment of the home, families will have a higher sense of financial wellbeing that is able to support the reduced fixed costs in terms of transport and consumption on the journey made to the home location (Jacobs and John 47). As the patients share within the benefits that other regions have been accorded since the period 1990 when the initial Fisher Home was instituted, the element of equity and fairness will have been accorded on an indiscriminative base to all parties, consistent with the human rights obligations. Lastly, the government taking the capacity of Fisher Home managers will receive positive public support in terms of unbiased resource allocation for a more equitable society that leads to overall wellbeing of the nation. Consequently, high societal equity will lead to harmonious relations between the states and thereby according an excellent image both within the domestic region and within the international aspect.
Biank, Tanya. A Family’s Guide to the Military for Dummies. London: For Dummies, 2008. Print.
Fisher House Foundation, Inc. About Fischer House Program. 2010. Web. 4 May 2011.
Jacobs, Philip and John Rapoport. The economics of health and medical care. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2004. Print.
Tricare Military Health System. Military Hospitals & Medical Centers. 12 March 2008. Web. 4 May 2011.