Many Americans try to find reasons to why we may or may not have universal health care for all. Although the pro and cons list go on and on, it is understood that health care is and should be treated as a priority. It is a basic need of each person not only in the US but around the world. Despite gender, race, sexual orientation and most importantly age universal or single player health care is considered the best option for everyone. However, the debate amongst government officials is whether we employ a single player health care system or an overall universal health care system. Both systems would benefit Americans especially those who struggle to keep paying for a law that is required but maybe not so desired or financially beneficial for everyone. Being able to be realistic about this necessity becomes hazy even more so as the actual demand for professional medical associates and their services will surely increase, while the salary and compensation of those employed in this field will ultimately suffer.
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
The question of Universal Healthcare in the United States has valid and non valid arguments with supporters on both sides of the issue. Millions of Americans do not have affordable health care insurance. The main question is who is responsible to provide this? Is it feasible for government to pay for the lack of health care by taxpayer’s dollars? Should you be responsible for yourselves or should you be compensated by the government? Unemployment is at record high making health insurance less attainable or affordable than ever. In most cases, additional restrictions or
The United States is known as one of the greatest world powers: however it is held back by its weak healthcare system. As of 2010 the US healthcare system currently ranks the 37th best out of 190 countries (Murray). Before the introduction of the Affordable Care Ac in 2010, the United States had an individual insurance market. It was the responsibility of the individual or their employer to take care of their healthcare costs. On top of this, millions of people could be denied insurance by different agencies due to pre-existing claims. Healthcare was expensive, but the costs were nothing compared to the medical bills owed by an uninsured person. Universal healthcare is a basic right not a privilege. Everyone should be given the
In a country where healthcare is a decision, many debate if our country should keep our health care system privatized. Health care is an essential need in society because individual health can change at any time without warning at any time. While there are both pros and cons of this system, the pros outway the cons. I believe that our nation should ensure basic health care to all legal citizens, no matter the class. Many Americans fall into circumstances where they are not able to pay the expensive bills that privatized insurance companies billhave so they do not have chose to not have insurance at all. Universal health care gives those people the means of financial support when they medically need
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.
“That the U.S. health care system is broken and needs to be fixed is widely agreed to be true” (Universal Health Care Opposing Views p 19) is immediately apparent following a brief research of the organization of health care in the nation. There is an inability to control rising health care costs, and the system, although considered the most technologically advanced in the world, is riddled with waste and inefficiency. Year on year, doctors are spending increasingly more time dealing with insurance related administrative work rather than healing patients, there is gross overuse of care because employees view healthcare as part of a work-related benefit package, access to health care is based on ability to pay, and there is constant anxiety caused by the fear of losing employer-sponsored coverage. In contrast, a system of universal healthcare offers free services that are accessible to all, releases doctors from insurance paperwork to focus on healing, removes overuse of care because citizens fund the services through the payment of taxes, and may lead to healthier populations, among other things. Therefore, although vastly different from the current system, one could consider whether the introduction of universal healthcare would be beneficial for the USA?
Since the advent of health insurance in the 1950s, there have been many models of care that are come to the scene in an attempt to both control cost of care and improve quality of care. Insurance models came into being because the fee for service model used until then was proving to increase cost of healthcare without any measure of quality of services and care provided. Health insurance models have evolved from the basic hospital offered insurance to employer sponsored coverage plans. The US health system is broken both financially and quality wise with more than 20% of gross domestic product being spent on healthcare (Blackstone, 2016).
Universal healthcare has been a big issue and a major problem for Americans, especially for people without it. Universal health care (Montgomery, Kelly. “Frequently asked questions.” formosapost.com. Health Insurance, 15 Feb. 2017. Web. 14 Nov. 2017.
The United States has the most expensive health care system in the world and some 45 million Americans are uninsured under the current health care system, and these numbers continue to grow. However with universal health care coverage everyone could enjoy equal access to health care, as a right afforded to them as American citizens. In a country as wealthy as the United States, there is no justifiable reason why Americans should go without health care and/or die
Health care is one of the most important systems in this world. With insurance you are most likely to receie health care and have a better health status. Uninsured people are less likely to receive medical care and more likely to have poor health status. When you dont have insurance you are most likely to pay a lot more money for health care but if you have insurance they are most likely to cover the whole payment or most of the bill. A universal health care system would bring costs down and increase access to care.
On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.
Should the U.S. government create a universal healthcare system? Many claims and arguments have been made in response to this question. This essay will explain and discuss both sides of the argument and share my personal opinion on the subject.
Health care is a highly political topic, and the issue of whether or not to make health care, universal is at the center of the controversy (Rich & Walter, 2015). Health care is a vital component of day-to-day life, and as such it has not been left entirely in the hands of private ownership. There are regulations in place to ensure people receive quality health care at a relatively low price. Universal health care would just expand these already existing regulations while opening up health insurance to the masses. Universal health care has a role in the American Health care system, but only as a supplement to the private insurance model.
Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.