Advantages Of Public Health Care

In contrast to the United States, Great Britain has a health care system that is focused on the delivery of health care as a human right. Because of this model health insurance is universal for all citizens allowing everyone to have access to care. According to Sick Around the World produced by Jon Palfreman (2008), Great Britain runs a system that allows their people to never receive medical bills. Instead, Great Britain has implemented a national health system where the government runs and regulates the delivery of health care (Shi & Singh, 2013, p. 20). They have universal coverage where all citizens have access to health care under the national health system (Thorlby & Arora, 2016, p. 49). People living in Great Britain can also choose to pay for their own private insurance but only a small number of people select to do so.

A Health care system of any country is an important consideration for the purposes of the overall development. One of the most important and essential feature of the human body is the health and the systems. In the same manner, proper management is also necessary. Furthermore, all the countries of the world have few targets and achievements to be made. On the other hand, it should also be noted down that, economic development and social welfare the two most are the two important factors. Economic welfare is connected with the increase in the wealth of the people at large (Niles, 2011).

Public health is concerned with improving the health of population, rather than treating the diseases of individual patients. If a condition has been discovered -they want to make sure they live longer by promoting and preventing diseases and complications. Public health is everyone around you and the involvement of the community. If public health is really effective then it will also help the NHS save money.

One of the biggest issues in the medical field sector in United Arab Emirates is the lack of work forces such as doctors, nurses, and pharmacists (Gov of the UAE). According to Ministry of health statistics, the number of doctors in United Arab Emirates is 1.75 per 1000 people which is a very low ratio. While the nurses represent 2.7 per 1000 people ( MOH of the UAE,2014 ) . The country had realized the huge gap that impaire the health care system. Thus , the priority was set on its agenda for the plan of the year 2030. where it focuses on the issue and state the following " The Authority is also working on a comprehensive plan to attract, train and retain health care professionals with the focus on increasing the number of Emirati work force" (HAAD,2014).On the other hand the main obstacle that is facing Singapore heath care system is finance . The government is only responsible for the basic health care services. Therefore each individual is expected to take responsibility for his/her own health requirements (Lee & Wong ,2008 ).This issue has the major impact on the health care system of Singapore .However an outstanding country as Singapore would not stay still while such a problem exists in its system

Some disadvantages of the current health care system in the United States is tons of people have no healthcare insurance at all and many of the insurance coverages have such high premium and deductibles people can't afford it. For you to be eligible for Medicaid you have to have a very low income. To get Medicare you have to be a certain age and Medicare doesn't cover all health care costs. For Private health care insurance you have to have a clean bill of health and if you have health conditions they will deny you coverage. But if private insurance companies are willing to give you insurance the premiums are so high and the

Health care in the UK relies heavily on a public market rather than a private driven market; thus, giving free care to its people. NHS services are free of charge to patients in England unless stated (Department of Health, 2013). Free health care in the UK aim to prevent ill health and

People are living longer, population is increasing by the day. Public spending is insufficient hence the infusion of private funds can assist in providing the 1st class health service that the people required.

This topic also resorts back to cost, as it is the main edge that the National Health Service has over Obamacare. As you may know, Obamacare and the National Health Service both grant access to healthcare to virtually everyone, but do they really? Obamacare does cover everyone, but that does not mean that everyone can afford it. Healthcare in the United States is based on the citizen’s ability to pay out of pocket. This leaves millions of people with minimum access to healthcare. In the United Kingdom, when they use the National Health Service, it makes healthcare available to everyone no matter what, and there are no strings attached, unlike the Obamacare in the United States (Calvo

What are the downsides of a universal healthcare system? A universal healthcare system is likely to decrease patient care and doctor flexibility. Loss of private practice options will dissuade potential physicians from entering the market. Malpractice suits will then be government liability, as it becomes the controlling agency. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care. Patient privacy and confidentiality may be compromised as it becomes government responsibility. Individual freedoms, such as smoking, drinking, and fast food, may face additional restrictions as they can impact health. Those countries with government health systems already in place, such as France, Netherlands, and Switzerland are not without

The United Kingdom provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents may receive free health care

This paper outlines the differences between the healthcare systems of the United States and the United Kingdom and expands on what that means for the health and wealth of the citizens of these countries. The U.S. and the U.K. are two different countries with two very different healthcare systems. The U.S. healthcare system is the Affordable Care Act, (ACA) and is the attempt by the U.S. to provide affordable healthcare coverage. he U.K. healthcare system is publicly financed and managed by the National Health Service, (NHS). The U.S. healthcare system is largely private sector whereas the healthcare in the U.K. is public. “The U.S. spends more on health care than any other country in the nation while the U.K. is a country that spends

The United Kingdom utilizes a national health service. This service is government owned and controlled. Most practitioners are employees of the government and hospitals are government run. Taxes provide nearly 80% of the funding for their health program. The remainders of the cost are covered by employee and employer contributions. Most providers and hospitals are public, although there is a small but growing private sector. The citizens of the United Kingdom pay nothing for visits to their physician or hospital stays. They also can choose which providers they want to visit and have “good access to primary care” (Hohman, 2006). The United Kingdom ranked number 18 in overall healthcare (WHO 2000) while spending only 8.4% of its gross domestic product (Kaiser EDU). In a recent poll, 79% of UK citizens “agreed that the NHS provided them with good service” (Health Science Journal, 2009).

Cost is a critical component of any health care system. Proper health care system ensures that a large part of the population can access good quality health care at low cost. If not well organized it might take a large part of national income and still not be able to serve a significant part of the population. The health care delivery system of United States is excellent compared to that of other countries; however, the health care alone takes 17% of gross domestic

Public spending on healthcare in India is one of the lowest in the world. With a 20% of healthcare expenditure is in the public sector. The lack of investment in public health care actually means that India has fewer hospitals and fewer physicians. Because of the fact they have fewer hospitals and fewer physicians, it means the public has reduced access to healthcare. In practical terms, what it means is the public hospitals with a physician is not very close to the individual that needs to be treated and would have to travel long distance in order to receive treatment. When a patient reaches

Apart from having the public sector, we also have a well established private sector The private sector absorbs 32% of the total expenditure on health in the country. . In a year, the private sector has 27, 000 admissions for in-patient treatment, undertakes 13,000 surgical operations and delivers over 2,000 babies. Some people choose private hospitals instead of public hospitals due to better service quality and admission procedures. There are reliable doctors and nursing officers and their attitude are courteous and they are more hospitable and are ready to help.