An Insiders View Of The Us And Us Medical System Essay

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the Healthcare system in the United States versus the Healthcare system in the United Kingdom. When comparing the healthcare systems of the two countries the first thing that should be done is determining the differences between a “Good Healthcare System, which is the best attainable average level and a Fair Healthcare System, which is the smallest feasible differences among individuals and groups.” Ibid., p. 27-35 Data also analyzed in Gerard Anderson and

The National Health System began in 1948 with the aim to provide free health care for the English thus removing health access inequities. This essay considers two strengths of the NHS, being free health and locally responsive health care and two weaknesses being the financial burden and unprecedented pressure on health care resources.

Universal Healthcare sounds appealing, but it actually lowers the quality and quantity of healthcare services that are rendered to patients, thus downgrading the healthcare system as a whole.  Not having to pay, with everyone having coverage leads to longer wait times for medical service and many people overusing health care services. Implementation of Universal Healthcare in the United States would lead to a detrimental crippling of the nation’s health system. For those countries that have implemented Universal Healthcare or a system similar to it, all or most aspects of the coverage such as cost and care is generally provided by and tightly controlled by the government, a public-sector committee, or employer-based programs, with most of the funding essentially coming from tax revenues or budget cuts in other areas of spending. This paper will conclude with comparing the US healthcare system to others and how the US has one of the most advanced systems in the world.

The following paper is based on the differences between two healthcare systems in two different countries, these systems are the Australian healthcare system which is Medicare, and England’s National health system which is known as the NHS.

By examining both the United States health care system and the British health care system, it will provide insight of which elements of each system are beneficiary and which elements of each system are disadvantages. Therefore, this paper will provide an overview of the pros and cons of each system to decide where improvements need to be made.

The first amazing fact I discovered is that every modern westernized country, with the exception of the United States, broadly accepts and runs some form of socialized medicine. England passed their National Health Service (NHS) Act in 1948, and from that year has provided free physician and hospital services for all her citizens. Government takeover is a concept that contributed to the European approach where government not only owns the hospitals but doctors are also public employees.

According to the World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems the United States ranks at number 37 overall and is the only wealthy industrialized nation that doesn 't have a universal healthcare system. If this is to be fixed we need to take a look at other countries systems and learn how to improve conditions. This paper is going to talk about five countries; Spain, Germany, Canada, Cuba, and the United States. These countries cover a wide variety of healthcare systems. According to most lists America has the worst health care of these countries so it should try to learn from these countries to improve itself.

The National Health Service has seen many political and financial changes since it began. The advance in medicine since the 19th century impacted the Britain significantly. The health of the nation has improved dramatically since the NHS formed. The timeline of events leading up to its formation are crucial.

The United States health care system is one of the most expensive health care systems in the world, yet ranks last in performance when compared to other wealthy countries health systems. Among those countries the United Kingdom ranks number one because it is more effective and accessible. The United Kingdom’s universal coverage allows for a higher performance of quality care, access and efficiency as compared to the US which ranks at the bottom of the list due to its absence of universal health care. The United Kingdom spends around “$3,405 per person” whereas the “United States spends around $8,508” ("Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally," 2014) yet still fails to succeed in providing efficient health care to many Americans.

Health care in the United Kingdom is devolved depending states: other states like Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate entities and do not form part of the UK medical healthcare system. The states have their own private and public sectors of health care to the people. Devolution stretches to every activity that is concerned with delivering of health care facilities and personalities required that serve the citizens. The model of offering health care among the citizens of the United Kingdom is different from those of other states like Wales and Scotland. Moreover, the policies and strategies of health care are different between the United Kingdom and other states.

According to the article and what you know, what are the benefits of the U.S. health care system? What are the limitations? What are the benefits of the health care system in England? What are the limitations?

When I received a suggestion from the editor of a magazine to write an article about U.S. health-care system, this legendary opening line from Tolstoy’s novel, Anna Karenina, popped into my head. If countries were families judging each other’s health-care systems, none is truly happy. But U.S. arguably stands out by far as the unhappiest of all, and in its own way.

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).

The health care system of the United States is different. This term means an act of offering patients health care services. In spite of the role of the federal government as the sole main player for the health care, no set of policies or national identity to guide the health care system. The majority of developed nations, unlike the United States, have nationwide health insurance programs which are financed through universal taxes and run by the government. This implies that in such nations, nearly all citizens are allowed to get health care services including basic and routine health care meaning that

In line with the majority of other developed countries, the United Kingdom (UK) has offered its citizens a universal health care system that is free at the point of service. Funded primarily by taxation, the system is popular and efficient. However, along with most other health care systems around the world, it faces a series of challenges if it is to maintain viability, in the twenty-first century. These issues include; long waiting times, an aging population, funding challenges and the increasing cost of technology.