Should we have National Healthcare in the United States or is there another way? The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the potential pros and cons of establishing united healthcare plans in America, and countries across the world. This paper will use preexisting research, and scholarly journals to incorporate availability, financial necessity, governmental involvement, and personal risk associated with a national healthcare plan. What is the potential risk of losing privatized healthcare, or learning to use the aid of other countries in times of need, versus the potential financial insecurities a national tax could bring to a nation under a healthcare system? The research will differ in topic, and orientation; but I will attempt to eliminate
The idea is to create a government-run health care plan that would be an alternative to the private insurance plans offered under the Affordable Care Act, or provide a fallback in markets where insurers have been pulling out. A public option could also be a way to stabilize the exchanges because a government-run plan could be used to enroll the people with the most expensive medical conditions. The private insurers would be more enthusiastic about selling policies because they might have to worry less about losses. Public option is simply a public health insurance agency, typically a government-run agency that can compete with the private insurers. This is sort of a half-way point between single payer and the pre- ACA private market. Almost
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
Around the world, people often look at the United States for the boundless opportunities afforded to its citizens. However, one thing most of them cannot wrap their heads around is the idea that a person can accrue crippling debt should they become sick. Debate still continues on whether or not single payer healthcare is a viable option for the United States. In the current political climate, arguments for either side turn into a division between ideologies or parties rather than an objective comparison of the options. It is important to discover which system might be best suited, or at the very least, the advantages and disadvantages of each. Much of the data shows that a single payer option could potentially save money and allow more Americans access to healthcare, but do these anticipated advantages outweigh the costs?
A single payer system of healthcare, most notably modeled by European countries and Canada, aims to be more efficient, cost effective, and have a broach reach among citizens, leaving 0% un-insured. Although, the system covers only the government provided “necessities”, where the single payer is the government insurance, which covers “medically necessary” ( nejm. org) operations or checkups, and leaves citizens to use private insurance to cover other “services not covered not covered by the government plan” (nejm.org) This model allows for the allocation of a nationwide insurance program, without the loss of competition for private insurers. This healthcare system can co-exist with private insurers to offer competition, while ensuring that a vast majority of U.S citizens have health insurance.
The paper is broken up in to three sections. In section one, we will discuss the problems with the American Healthcare system and we will try and clear up some of the often misrepresented facts about the healthcare problems and solutions to fix them. In section two, we will present some of the solutions being put forward to fix the healthcare system, including plans by both Presidential Candidates
Despite these financial controversies, looking at the numbers seems to suggest otherwise. In regards to the financial statistics, universal health care actually proves to cost less. Currently, Americans spend more than $900 billion per year, twice the amount of most developed European nations and 40% more than Canada (Universal Access 2). This statistic shows that although Washington attempts to control costs by leaving health insurance in the hands of the people, in the end private health insurance is simply not efficient in terms of its monetary principles. By contrast, the nation and its people would therefore benefit from a universal plan that would ensure care while at the same time eliminating the capitalistic idea of profit that arises when private
Health care costs in America have reached an all-time high of 16% of gross domestic product, making the U.S. the single biggest spender on health care in the world. As health care in America is assessed and analyzed there is continued debate on the inefficiencies, and fragmentation, and high costs in medications, program administration, and medical innovation. This has led to discussion, theories, and studies of single-payer health coverage, and how the U.S could adapt a single-payer system. While no one has purposed a concrete system, theories exist that a single-payer system can create savings in total health care cost. In this paper two articles are reviewed that speak to
Creating a national health care plan that would be fair, affordable, and have quality, effective, and efficient work available for every citizen, is what most every nation strives for. However, where there is a will, the way is not always that simple as the struggle for the best health care is evident in most countries. This is why we have developed a what we believe would be the ideal national health care plan -- our utopia.
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
Throughout the modern era of the United States, one constant issue in society is free healthcare. This issue is not just an issue in the United States, but also in the whole world. Many other countries have made drastic changes in order to fix or at least attempt to fix this issue in their own country, but the U.S. has not done very much. Many Americans believe that free healthcare is something that tax paying citizens should be entitled to. These citizens of the United States ask why and how do many other countries have free healthcare, but the U.S. does not. These citizens ask this because they consider the fact that the United States is a very powerful country, but there are many other poorer countries around the world that have free healthcare.
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.
Universal healthcare is a type of health care where everyone is provided coverage regardless of their income, race, age, pre-existing conditions, gender, or wealth 1. What this means is that as long as you are a legal resident of the region that is being covered, (i.e., the United States), you are eligible for universal health care. The goal of universal health coverage is to ensure that all people obtain the health services they need, without suffering financial hardship when paying for them 2. The United States (U.S.) does not have a uniform health system, has no universal health care coverage, and only recently enacted legislation mandating healthcare coverage for almost everyone 3. In March, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law, one important component of this act, is that all Americans are required to have some form of health insurance from either their employer, an individual plan, or through a public program such as Medicaid or Medicare 3.
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.
According to Squires and Chloe, the United States of America is considered as the greatest country in the world, with the largest economy, military powers, freedom of religion and speech, and one of the most successful democrats (2). However, the United States in the only western modernized nation that does not offer free healthcare services to all its citizens. Apparently, the costs of the healthcare services to the uninsured individuals in the US are prohibitive, where the insurance companies are interested in making higher profit margins than providing adequate health care to the insured (Squires and Chloe 4). These conditions are unexpectable and incompatible with the United States