Undoubtedly, healthcare services can maintain or improve both physical and mental health of individuals and it is crucial for all the citizens. Therefore, a majority want to receive free and approachable healthcare service irrespective of their social background, age or health status by the government. However, a well-organized and effective free healthcare system is complicated to provide to the public and the government will face enormous challenges and dilemmas when they authorize the citizens to access essential healthcare without any charge. This essay discusses two different healthcare systems in the United Kingdom and the United States and analyses the effectiveness and efficiency of both free public and private healthcare. It will be argued that the healthcare system will be more effective if the health care is partially provided by the government free of charge and partly provided by the private companies.
Firstly, the funding of universal healthcare predominantly comes from the taxation, therefore, it will burden the taxpayers with heavy taxes; while a small proportion of individual cannot afford the private health insurance in the private market, thus, two healthcare systems should implement together. In the United Kingdom, National Health Service (NHS) provides a comprehensive range of health services to all the residents (Aspalter et al, 2012, p.21), however, numerous of British against a rise in income tax to pay more towards the NHS since the systems are
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.
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.
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 availability of healthcare is an extremely important issue in the United States. There are millions of Americans that are uninsured in the U.S. A high amount of uninsured people are from minority groups such as Hispanics and African-Americans. High deductible payments, the cost of prescription drugs, and lack of health insurance coverage cause many Americans to choose to live without insurance to save money for everyday expenses beside healthcare. Without health insurance, people do not have access to quality healthcare. Most citizens are aware of the issues in the healthcare system, but the disagreement comes when discussing how the best approach on ameliorating the system. Some believe that a more public and universal healthcare system is the best approach. Others believe that America works best through free enterprise and private institutions, and believe health insurance should be more privatized. However, health care has been shown to work best and be more available through proper public government control as it will allow for all Americans to have access to equal healthcare, in which money does not dictate health.
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
It can be argued that establishing Universal Healthcare would be a drain of government resources and would necessitate subsidization by taxes. A Universal Healthcare system provided for all citizens would create an extra tax on
Health care in the UK relies heavily on a public market rather than a private driven market; thus, giving free care to its people. NHS services are free of charge to patients in England unless stated (Department of Health, 2013). Free health care in the UK aim to prevent ill health and
One of the issues that is widely discussed and debated concerning the United States economy is the healthcare system. Unlike in the majority of developed and developing countries, the healthcare system in the United States is not public, meaning that the state does not provide free or cheap healthcare services. This paper addresses many of the factors contributing to the rising cost of healthcare.
This paper outlines the differences between the healthcare systems of the United States and the United Kingdom and expands on what that means for the health and wealth of the citizens of these countries. The U.S. and the U.K. are two different countries with two very different healthcare systems. The U.S. healthcare system is the Affordable Care Act, (ACA) and is the attempt by the U.S. to provide affordable healthcare coverage. he U.K. healthcare system is publicly financed and managed by the National Health Service, (NHS). The U.S. healthcare system is largely private sector whereas the healthcare in the U.K. is public. “The U.S. spends more on health care than any other country in the nation while the U.K. is a country that spends
With all the facts disclosed in the paper, it is clear that universal healthcare is counter-effective. It causes higher taxation, shortage of doctors and medical supplies, as well as the lack of motivation in innovation within the industry and enhancing the quality of medical services due to zero competition. Our conclusion is that holistic free health services should predominantly be given to vulnerable and low-income groups who suffers from serious conditions so that they can receive effective treatment in time. Thusly, NHS can not only improve the efficiency in improving waiting times but also improve service qualities, on the other hand, higher-income groups can benefit from less taxation and utilize it for minor medical costs. Without a doubt, under serious or emergency circumstance, higher income population should also be assisted and treated in high
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).
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.
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.