An Optimistic Comparison of British National Healthcare and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The economics of healthcare is not at all simple. What you put in is certainly not necessarily indicative of what you get out, as shown by the striking discrepancy between what we pay and what we get out of our healthcare system. This is demonstrated further by comparing our system to those of France and Italy, who come in first and second, respectively, in WHO’s international ranking of healthcare systems (“World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems”). Counter to what many Americans may believe, a number of European nations do not have completely socialized medicine.

In the contemporary world, America is one of the greatest countries. From the polio vaccine to Coca Cola, United States is mother to many inventions. As Americans, we enjoy higher quality living standards than most other parts of the world. This pleasure-oriented lifestyle makes a lot of other nations envious of us. And with the envy comes antipathy. For the time it has existed, the American healthcare system has been a subject of scrutiny and debate.

A national health care system in the United States has been a contentious topic of debate for over a century. Social reformists have been fighting for universal health care for all Americans, while the opposition claims that a “social” heath care system has no place in the ‘Land of the Free’.

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.

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.

Some health care costs may be paid by the patient and some health care costs may be covered by the universal health insurance program. There is perhaps no domain of economic activity that has generated more controversy in the United States than health care. In the advanced capitalist world, the United States is the only country within which the market plays a substantial role in the delivery of health care services; all other countries have one form or another of universal, publicly supported health care policies. In other intance if we differ from what is universal health from socialized heatlh. Some people refer to universal health care as socialized medicine. The term “socialized medicine” is primarily used for only in the United States by those who do not support the idea of universal health care(cite). Given the understanding that outside the US, is a different situation saying that the terms most used are universal health care or public health

uses a government run National Health Service (NHS), which seems too close to socialism for

Many people think The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is socialism. There are many reasons for this, one is that it lets the federal government mandate what the price of health care is which in effect can cause the prices of healthcare to go up dramatically within the next four years. This also makes everyone get health care even if that set family cant afford it which is a form of Socialism. If you refuse to get the new health care, like in the case of small businesses with over 50 employees they will drop existing businesses medicade plan that you have, and you wont have the extra care at all. In all technicallity there has been no limit in which the federal government can tax Americans for health care. In the long run that will put a bigger dent in Americas economy and our debt to China.

While campaigning for the 2016 presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed that America should adopt a single-payer health care system. In Sanders’s plan, there would have been only one insurance program that would have covered everyone in the United States; in effect, other programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and especially private insurance would be discontinued (Holahan, 2016, p. 1). If Sanders’s proposal were to be carried out, it would be a drastic change from the current system which predominately comprises of private insurance and hospitals under limited government regulations. The debate reopened on whether or not a single-payer system would be an effective system health care system or economically viable. Due to the contrasting nature of current health care system in the United States, policymakers should approach proposals of single-payer health care systems with caution and an understanding of the benefits and the drawbacks by examining the successes and failures of real-world systems.

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

Despite all the benefits The Affordable Care Act gives to people, some people believe this law is socialism, and unlawfully forces people to buy health insurance. In 1935 FDR passed Social Security; his critics called this “creeping socialism”. If Social Security were true socialism, no one would pay into it, and retirees would just collect taxpayers money. The same applies for

Socialized medical systems are designed to disregard the insurance industry and disregard income while providing health care for all. Healthcare in the United States is constantly changing and advancing, which requires the cost of health insurance to rise. The idea of socialized medicine is prominent, until the aspects of socialized medicine are brought to attention. Every aspect of a socialized health care industry is controlled and powered by the government; most doctors, nurses, medics and administrators are government employees, and the government decides when, where, and how services are provided. Even though socialized healthcare systems would save money, it is a prominent idea but not worth the problems because total government control over the way healthcare is distributed would result in complications of the citizens.

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

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).

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.