Health Care In Healthcare Case Study

In the article, it says that more than thirty percent of Americans support this push to have a personalized plan. The Pew Research Center reported that 60% of the population said that the government should ensure health care coverage but 39% said that the government should not which brings up a question, where is the other 1% leaning. The influence of private investors, companies and government programs have completely taken over the health care system so the core roots of what was originally established have been somewhat lost. Pharmaceutical companies are very against the push to single-payer health care because it jeopardizes their profit off their patients. Looking at how the investors see Obamacare is that they get to control the prices of medications, they mandate how much a procedure may cost and it can fluctuate depending on where you want to seek care. The single-payer option completely discards the monopolies out of health care and also underpays physicians. "In a single-payer system," Dr. Michael Accad from San Francisco says, "planners decide arbitrarily what the payments should be, and payments fall because there are no competitors and no choice for providers to bid up payments." A study did show that primary care physicians received higher pay with Medicare rather than a centralized system such as Canada. Dr. Accad says that single-payer systems in Canada, the United Kingdom, and other developed

With rising healthcare costs being distributed predominantly on workers or their companies, the economic responsibility is placed on the very people who need it the least: the job creators. If the economic responsibility of healthcare costs was shifted to the government, the private sector job creators could have more revenue to stimulate the economy with additional jobs, better wages, and improved worker benefits. The best way to shift this cost obligation is via a single-payer healthcare system. A single-payer would make sure all citizens would be covered for all medical services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug, and medical supply costs.

The concept of a national single-payer health care system in America is far from a new one. In his journal, Dr. Jonathan Oberlander (2016) listed some of the proposals that have been made in the United States over the years. The first on his list was a bill that was created in 1943 with plans to establish a payroll tax-funded health insurance for the whole country; despite the

Single-payer health plan places the financing with one entity usually the government. “One major advantage of this system is that all Americans and lawful residents would be entitled to benefits regardless of individual or family income” (Shi &ump; Singh, 2008, p. 572). “Private insurance plans and government entitlement programs (Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program) would no longer be necessary under a single-payer system, although the for some private insurance will remain for those desiring coverage beyond what a basic government plan might offer” (Shi &ump; Singh, 2008, p. 572). “Health care providers would be reimbursed on a fee-for-service scale” (Shi &ump; Singh, 2008, p. 572). “Hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutional facilities would be given an annual prospective budget to provide all required care” (Shi &ump; Singh, 2008, p. 572). Single-payer system has to offer two things that are important are having coverage for all individuals in the United States and the money spent on health care was budgeted.

A nation that does not provide the opportunity, for the flourishing of health among its citizens, is inherently flawed. A country like the U.S is no exception to this assertion. The United States government should implement a single payer universal health care system. The Modern U.S health care is allowing its citizens to rack up vast amounts of medical debt, in addition, large amounts of its population to remain uninsured. The U.S lags behind an idea, which, many other countries have accepted and that is health care is a human right. A plethora of positive reasons stand behind the notion of a single payer universal health care system, like the ones in other countries. However, the system in place now, has many systemic problems that are hurting citizens, particularly the lower and middle class.

A single payer health care system causes an increase in taxes as the system needs to be paid for. The overall costs if the system can be draining on a country and causes large debts. The existing U.S government healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are already putting a huge strain on public budget. Adding a universal healthcare program to these would amount to enormous growth in government spending and debt. Governments aren’t that great at running large systems and the fact that the government runs health care can lead to a lot of problems. To run the health care system there may need to be cuts made in other areas of the government which weaken those areas to compensate for the need of the health care system. However, this doesn’t mean that government can’t adjust. Throughout the last 3 centuries our government has been molded and crafted to be better. There is nothing standing in the way of further positive

If the US were to adopt the single-payer system, as exists in Great Britain under the National Health Service (NHS), "a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity a government-run organization would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.... In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don't have it" (What is single payer, 2012, PNHP).

The Single-Party Payer is no different and requires a great deal of understanding. The Single Payer provides a great deal of benefits. Under this coverage, everyone is treated equally with disregard to social status and is guaranteed to receive a high quality of service. The billing process in hospitals will also be much simplified, giving the physicians free range to prescribe medicines to patients as they so deem fit. Its non-profit status significantly contributes to the reduction of single health care with no limitations and since the system is government operated, insurance premiums are not evident when compared to private organizations (HRF, 2014). Cons of Single

The future of healthcare resides in a single-payer system. Our country already has roughly fifty years of experience in this area under the Medicare program. By extending Medicare to all citizens we could ensure that all have the health coverage they need and that “everyone would make a financial contribution to Medicare for All” (Seidman, 2015). A single-payer system would also give the government the necessary leverage to negotiate better prices for care and prescription

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare is a healthcare reform law that is intended to reform the health care system by providing Americans with affordable quality health insurance by controlling the growth in healthcare spending. Some critics of the Affordable Care Act say the ACA has not provided universal coverage, and one way to fix this is to adopt a “single-payer system.” I agree with these critics on the counts of the Single Payer System being a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Doctors and patients regaining healthcare freedom, the accessibility of full coverage, and with financial benefits, the Single Payer System should be adopted by America today.

The author does list both the pros and cons of a single-payer and addresses and deliberates each side. Finally, the case is made that a single-payer is actually superior to what we currently have, even under the ACA (Oliver).

There are currently sixteen countries with a single payer health care system. Single payer health care is a universal health care system where a single fund, rather than private insurers, pays for health care costs. There are nine countries with a two tier health care system. Two-tier health care is a government provided health care system that only provides basic medical necessities. The secondary tier of care exists for those who can purchase additional health care services to receive better quality and faster access. The last type of universal health care is mandatory health insurance, which makes it mandatory for every citizen of the country to purchase health insurance, whether is from a public or private insurer. There are eight countries that have this type of mandatory health insurance.( List of Countries with Universal Healthcare. True Cost Blog.) Just like everything else, there are also pros and cons to each of the three universal health care systems. The beneficial aspect of a Two Tier health care system is that the people that can afford to buy the better health care, get better health care. The negative aspect would then be that it is not an equal system for those who cannot afford the better care. With the single payer health care system the positive aspect is that every person gets the same

A single payer national health care program could save American?s billions of dollars currently being spent on health care and insurance. A 2000 report by John Sheils and Randall Haught of the Lewin group on the costs and impact of a health care system in the state of Maryland showed that a single payer system implemented in that state would save its citizens 346.8 million dollars a year.(3) The majority of savings from this would come from vast reductions in administrative costs associated with insurance companies and the filing of claims. Sheils also reports that the average family would spend 261 dollars less each year on health costs (7). John Canham-Clyne notes in his book The Rational Option that a single payer bill proposed in the Senate was estimated to save the American public $110 billion a year by the Congressional Budget Office(24). The savings

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.

Amongst many of the Unites States government run systems, healthcare is essentially a money making machine with little regard to the well-being of those in need. Our current system, widely known as ObamaCare, is an individual mandate system. The individual mandate system has historically been proposed by republicans, most notably Bob Dole and Mitt Romney, as a combat to the single-payer system. Single payer health care has been implemented by the majority of developed nations throughout the world. Despite being the world's largest economy, the United States healthcare system is ranked 37th by the worlds health organization (2), as it directly causes an estimated (by Reuters) 26,000 annual deaths as a result of lack of coverage (3). Given the context, I am inclined to support the idea of a complete reform to our current system, and pursuing a single-payer system in the US.