Pros And Cons Of Having A National Healthcare In The United States

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

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

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

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.

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.

           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

“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?

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’.

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

Access to quality healthcare is the one of the top stories in international news today. Most countries around the world are finding different ways to control cost and delivery quality healthcare to its populations. Most countries have the difficult task of offering quality healthcare at an affordable price, without crashing the financial market within the countries. With a growing population and an elderly demographic that are living longer, this has caused a strain on healthcare resources that has a high cost on the economy that is limited. In the United States “Universal Healthcare” is a concept that was introduced to Americans since Bill Clinton has been President. Along with the United States, other countries are preparing for a

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?

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

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

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.