Essay Disadvantages of Socialized Medicine

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 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.

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.

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’.

All healthcare systems, regardless of funding mechanisms, ration the limited resources of health care to some degree (Petrou & Wolstenholme, 2000). Even setting limits on patient choice is a form of rationing that takes place in almost all countries’ health systems (Lauridsen, Norup & Rossel, 2007). In the United States, health care is rationed according to free market principles while other countries employ other means such as long wait times for non-acute conditions or delays in the

Health care spending in the United States of America as a percentage of the economy has reached astonishing heights, equating to 17.7 percent. This number is shocking when compared to other counties; in Australia health care is 8.9 percent, in United Kingdom 9.4 percent, in Canada 11.2 percent. If the American health care system were to hypothetically become its own economy, it would be the fifth-largest in the world. While these statistics sound troubling, they lead us to look for answers about the problems surrounding our system. The first health insurance company was created in the 1930s to give all American families an equal opportunity for hospital care and eventually led to a nationwide economic and social controversy that erupted in the 1990s and continued to be shaped by the government, insurance companies, doctors, and American citizens. In this paper, I will go in to detail about the various opinions regarding the controversy, the history behind health insurance companies, and the main dilemmas brought out by the health care crisis. Greedy insurance companies combined with high costs of doctor visits and pharmaceutical drugs or the inefficient hospitals all over America can only describe the beginning to this in depth crisis. Recently, the United States health care industry has become know for the outrageous costs of insurance models, developments of various social and health services programs, and the frequent changes in medicinal technology.

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

"Let there be no doubt. Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year," President Barack Obama proudly stated (New 1). As soon as President Obama was elected into the White House, he made it a mission to get a Health Care Bill passed. On March 21, 2010, Congress passed the first draft of the monumental Health Care Bill. This bill was passed so quickly that citizens of the United States never got a chance to fully understand the pros and cons of the bill. Congress was allowed to read the bill within a 72 hour time frame. When the bill was brought to the Congress's floor, representatives and senators had a full day to debate and vote in favor or against. Due to positive promotion of the Health Care Bill,

In “The American Health Care Paradox”, Elizabeth H. Bradley and Lauren A. Taylor explore why the American health care system achieves mediocre results, despite spending a higher percentage of its gross domestic product than any other country in the world on health care. They explain that health care is more than just getting medical treatment, but there are social factors that affect a person 's health. The authors claim that more government spending on medical treatments is not the solution to the health care paradox, but we should focus more on social needs that have a greater impact on health. Case studies and interviews with physicians, other health care providers, and social service providers are used to support the authors’ claims. Though the authors do not explicitly state the path they believe the American health care system should follow, they give examples of foreign health care systems and domestic health care projects that may point in the right direction.

The United States health care system is unique among other advanced countries. This system does not have a central governing agency, it is delivered under imperfect market conditions, there are multiple players and payers, and there is no universal health care coverage (Shi & Singh, 2015, p. 9). In a time where healthcare reform is being discussed, it is important for the United States to consider what is proactive as well as what is failing the system. That is what Sick Around The World did; the documentary compared five other countries’ (United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Switzerland) healthcare systems to see how they stacked up against the United States.

Countries that outperform the U.S. address these issues through universal health insurance, stronger primary care systems, payment approaches that minimize billing conflicts, and greater investment in social supports that lead to better health” (Squires,2017).

In addition to the mile-long waiting lists, the idealism of universal health care has also left Canada with problems, one problem being, having basic technology and machinery, when it could be advanced. Although Canada is the fifth highest among OECD countries in terms of total spending on health, it is generally among the bottom third of OECD countries in availability of technology.7 The local comparison is equally unfavourable. CT scanners, nuclear medicine facilities, MRIs, lithotriptors, positron emission tomography, specialized intensive-care facilities, and cardiac catheter labs are all less likely to be found at a community hospital in Canada than at a similar hospital in the United States. Angioplasty and transplant facilities

In this paper, the USA healthcare system is being compared to the Canadian healthcare system. The U.S. health system has been described as the most competitive, heterogeneous, and inefficient, fragmented, and advanced system of care in the

The current state of United States’ health care system is one of the most polarizing subjects of debate among scholars and other health care professionals across the globe. This can be attributed to the fact that at one extreme end, there are some who argue that that Americans have the best system of health care in the world (MePhee, 2013). Perhaps the availability of the state-of-the-art facilities and free medical technology that have become highly symbolic of the various industries in the United States have motivated the idea of the country’s health care system being unparalleled to others. However, there is a common belief that the fight for universal health care can only be successful if its current state of health care is described as a failure in the modern era as emphasized by MePhee (2013).

Since the beginning of human civilization, our health and well-being has sustained a high level of importance, because one’s physical and mental condition are things that are necessary to care for. The issue however remains in how our governments should assist in this care and how involved they should be in the world of doctors, drugs and healthcare companies. Many have strong opinions on this complex issue, and governments have attempted many different strategies which have been met with a sweeping range of results, from the corrupt health care companies which can be seen in the US to systems which have been denounced as communism to everything in between. Personally, I believe that completely universal healthcare is the best for society as a healthy population increases economic productivity, the system allows you to contribute incrementally over time and your wealth should not influence your access to care.