A National Health Care System

As Americans we should all be afforded access to healthcare. Access to healthcare is an individual right according to the human rights amendment. The human right to health guarantees a system of health protection for all. The human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions and a clean environment (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015). However there are strengths and weaknesses to every healthcare system and the U.S. Healthcare system is not exempt. I plan to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the U. S. Healthcare system (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015).

The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.”( Creech, Mark H. “Universal Health Care Is Unbiblical. ) Is access to health care a human right, or a valued social good, or neither? In 2003 the Institute of Medicine published a report, Insuring America's Health, which contained five principles for evaluating various strategies for health care reform. The first principle, "the most basic and important," was that health care coverage should be universal. The idea that access to health care should be universal, however, has become one of the most hotly debated issues in the ongoing discussion of how to reform the U.S. healthcare system. In Opposing Viewpoints: Universal Health Care, authors explores the

In this essay, I will conduct an examination of the topic public versus private health care institutions, in regards to each of their political ideologies, and beneficial ideals. A concern amongst citizens is whether private or public health care is more beneficial for them, while also yielding the most cost effective, regulated, and controlled standards of care for patients. Political ideologies relating to health care, diverge into two conflicting sets of principles: neo-conservatism and welfare state liberalism in relation to this essay. Although, health care has many ideologies that are not explained in this essay, there are ideals that correspond to similar doctrines held by different political groups. Neo-conservatism (private) and welfare state liberalism (pubic) are the two common principles associated with health care, and often lead into complex debate. After critically examining both options, in my opinion, it is evident that public health care under welfare state liberalism will benefit more citizens according to their needs, and provide equality throughout the state. In this essay, with regards to public and private health care, specific issues have emerged into society as to whether a person should select private health care as their primary option versus public health care. I will advocate for public health care due to private health care having many faults within their system using three main arguments. Moreover, private health care, often related to

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If these words are true then why should we segregate one another by a precondition such as Universal Health care? A system that should allow residents of a specific region the opportunity to have healthcare coverage. This paper argues stipulations that all residents should be given the opportunities stated in the founding documents as well as the right to suitable healthcare, economic productivity and, a base for a just nation. In 2014 according to the US Census Bureau 33 million people in the United States which equates to 10.4% did not have health insurance. Thus, possibly assisting with the inability to provide residents with lifesaving treatments and accurate care for those in dire need but were unable to receive certain previsions due to not having health care.

I strongly believe that all American citizens should be entitled free healthcare. This is due to that fact that this can play a big role of ensuring that there is an improved access to health services. In addition, ensuring that all American citizens have an access to the right health care will also decrease health care costs. For instance, by allowing people to receive regular and preventive medical care and not wait until they are persistently ill to request treatment when medical costs are much higher (Niles, 2011). In relation to this free health care will promote equal chance by decreasing the number of people who are economically deprived in society (Niles, 2011). This can be because of bad health and other medically-related financial problems.

One of the great hypocrisies of American culture is found in its health care system. The United States claims in its Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and that all of these men have the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet this is the same country that allows over 120 people to die each day because they are uninsured. How can this nation claim that all are created equal and have a right to life when they deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it? This issue has come on the scene relatively soon, having only truly been discussed beginning in the early 20th century. Since that time, a fear of socialism stemming from tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the century has placed a stigma on the concept of universal health care because it is similar to the Soviet’s socialized medicine. In recent years, President Obama made great strides toward universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, but some would argue that while America is on the right track, more can be done to care for the nation’s poor. Others argue that the economic impact of such policies could cause problems for America. Though creating a universal health care system has complex logistical and economic consequences, health care is an internationally acknowledged human right and should not be denied to the American people.

In 2007, more than 45 million Americans did not have health care insurance. The United States is the only industrialized major nation in the world without health care, and the debate about changing that has become a popular issue recently. The sharp difference between the two sides is a difference in ethical values; those for universal health care desire to see the government help others, mainly the lower class, and those who do not, wish that private companies be allowed to continue taking advantage of the status quo for profit. In this paper, I will argue why the Government should put in place The Universal Healthcare Systems.[1]

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

The campaign for some form of universal health care has spanned practically a century in the USA and has been the subject of political debate since the early part of the 20th century. Recent reforms remain an active and urgent political issue. Universal Health Care has been one of the leading public issues in America and in recent times this issue has risen to the fore, because of its increasing prevalence in the government, market, and civil sectors. In this essay, I will be looking at why this issue can and does affect everyone, no matter which sectors we look at. I will be taking an in-depth look at the many reasons why this public issue is worth caring about and why it is such a hotly contested subject in today’s politics, jobs, and even our homes. This is an incredibly important issue that should concern us all, but before we can start working on how to make this public issue better, we must first understand why it is a public issue.

In The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, T.R. Reid, a Washington Post reporter and NPR commentator, compares the United States’ health care system to the systems of other industrialized democracies. In this journey, he analyzes costs, quality, and overall functioning of the different systems. Through his first hand experiences around the globe, Reid illustrates a variety of systems, emphasizing the changes America needs.

According to Squires and Chloe, the United States of America is considered as the greatest country in the world, with the largest economy, military powers, freedom of religion and speech, and one of the most successful democrats (2). However, the United States in the only western modernized nation that does not offer free healthcare services to all its citizens. Apparently, the costs of the healthcare services to the uninsured individuals in the US are prohibitive, where the insurance companies are interested in making higher profit margins than providing adequate health care to the insured (Squires and Chloe 4). These conditions are unexpectable and incompatible with the United States

The health care system in the United States is one of the greatest concerns facing Americans today and is an issue both moral and economic in nature. Some think the system should stay, for all intents and purposes, the same. They believe that the right to healthcare is a stepping stone toward socialism, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain health care. These are usually the more ideologically conservative citizens and politicians who believe that medicine should remain a free enterprise, not to be constrained by government interference. Then there are those who believe that healthcare is a right, and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure it is available to all citizens, not just those who can afford

In her 2012 book, Health Care for Some: Rights and Rationing in the Unites States Since 1930, Beatrix Hoffman discusses the different viewpoints on the idea of a universal right to health care in the United States as well as the various manners in which health care has been and continues to be rationed the country. Unlike other developed nations in the world, the United States has never established a right to access to health care. Furthermore, arguments against a universal right to access to health care in the country have centered around that right resulting in rationing. Hoffman goes on to describe the numerous ways health care is rationed in the U.S (2012). Additionally, she makes the case that the U.S. style of rationing leads to increased health care costs and poorer outcomes as opposed to resulting from cost control by providing increased access as proponents to universal health care claim.

Healthcare is a major topic that is constantly being brought up in the news. It is often discussed within categories such as economics, politics, and policy. The reason that is, is because of healthcare's crucial role integration as part of each of these things. With that said, the United States has received back and forth opinions on the healthcare services that it offers. Karl Polanyi defines embeddedness as a way in which economic activity is constrained societies set of institutions (Tuttle 2018). So this implies that there are two main elements that are 'embedded' into the American culture, individualism and capitalism. These two elements shape the way the healthcare system is set up. Capitalism

Today’s healthcare environment is rapidly changing, and rightly so. Innovations are critical to cope with an aging population and an increased demand for services. Many patients have a variety of comorbid conditions that necessitate management by multiple physicians. Communication is a key element between a patient and all of their providers to managing these conditions, but fragmentation of care is still major weakness in the current health care system (Shannon, 2012). It is difficult for physicians to keep the patient and all other providers informed of conditions and treatment plan. This creates gaps in care that can result in diminished results. A patient portal can assist with giving patients access to their medical records and a communication platform with their providers. HealthIT (2015) defines a patient portal as “a secure online website that gives patients convenient 24-hour access to personal health information from anywhere with an Internet connection” (para. 1). A patient’s personal health information can include results from an appointment, prescriptions, allergies, test results and discharge instructions. Some portals even allow a patient to enter and track their own results such as weight and home glucose tests. These results can be taken to provider appointments and reviewed by the patient’s care team. In the current healthcare environment, patients are asked to play a larger role in the care they receive. This engagement not only helps the individual