Single Payer Health Care Essay

Health care has been a controversial topic of discussion for all Americans since it was put in effect many years ago. Currently the biggest debate of Healthcare up to date is Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is a Health care Reform that is a governmental attempt to make basic health care easily obtainable. However, there are no benefits without cost in situations like this, and upon that are different viewpoints on the subject thus creating political debates discussing if it is ethically correct. The overall goal that Obamacare hopes to accomplish is that through specific changes through insurance companies, industry standards, and patient guarantees a healthier America will be produced. Obamacare has its ups and downs for both the generally agreeing democratic viewpoints and the opposing republican side. Both viewpoints have their own beliefs about how Health care works and Obamacare is somewhat in between on this. Most arguments on Obamacare deal with Medicaid being constitutional and if Obamacare truly reduces the total cost of health care for individuals and in the government.

The New York Times printed an article by Robert Pear, which reported that on December 24, 2009, the US senate passed the first bill, which would call for major reform regarding health care in the United States (Pear). The article titled “Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote,” discusses the fact that while this step was a major milestone in the process of providing Americans with affordable heath care, it was not the end of the road. Over the coming months and years there would be a lot of give and take between democrats and republicans to revise the bill to the point where both sides could support it. One of the major points in this reform is that the US government was now going to offer affordable plans including subsidy options which would allow more Americans affordable options which were

President Obama’s pledge to pay for the program by taxing the rich, who is anyone that makes more than $1 million a year (which would include President Obama) and will make for “a marketplace that provides choice and competition” (Conniff, 2009). He also proposes that reform is about every American who has ever feared losing their coverage if they become too sick, lose their jobs or even change their jobs. It’s realizing that the biggest force behind our deficit is the growing costs for Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

LEADER’S EFFECTIVENESS USING UTILITARIANISM AS THE ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING APPROACH IN REGARD TO THE HEALTHCARE CHALLENGES SET FORTH BY THE PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2010

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

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

Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, there has been a continuous debate about the effects it will have on the United States economy. Many people argue that expanding insurance coverage for all people will create crippling cost burdens for the economy and taxpayers. While others believe that the ACA will in fact give the economy a much-needed boost. In 2006 as a measure to improve overall healthcare, the state of Massachusetts implemented the Health Care Insurance Reform Act. This paper looks at the positive and negative effects of the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act (MHRA). Using a literature review of public health studies ranging from 2009-2012, I argue that there are both positive and negative effects of the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform. While the Massachusetts Reform increased health insurance coverage for all citizens and decreased the number of uninsured citizens accessing emergency rooms, it also did very little to decrease already existing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities among minorities and whites in the state of Massachusetts. Understanding the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act may help in the goal of trying to achieve near-universal healthcare. This paper provides an understanding of the missing pieces in the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act and constitutes a starting place from which to understand the Affordable Care Act.

“If Obamacare is so wonderful, why is it that its loudest advocates don 't want to be subject to it,” stated Senator Ted Cruz. As financial and social hardships began to become apparent in the United States, one major problem facing the citizens and governing body is Health Care for all. Socialized medicine is a health care system where the government funds and runs health care facilities, employs the health care professionals, and pays for all health care amenities. This idea of giving high quality care to citizens previously unable to afford healthcare has caused problems in the United States, and this idea of “socialized medicine” has proven to create hardships in other countries in the past. Obamacare has introduced socialized medicine in the United States, which has caused negative effects both financially and ethically.

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

As discussed in lecture (Paterniti, 2009) and in Oberlander’s analysis of the U.S. health care system, “any reform that threatens to alter the medical care arrangements of the insured is likely to provoke public opposition” (2003). Most likely, the insured are well off financially and/or politically powerful. These people, who are for the most part content with their current health insurance, would oppose

The health care system in the United States is one of the greatest concerns facing Americans today and is an issue both moral and economic in nature. Some think the system should stay, for all intents and purposes, the same. They believe that the right to healthcare is a stepping stone toward socialism, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain health care. These are usually the more ideologically conservative citizens and politicians who believe that medicine should remain a free enterprise, not to be constrained by government interference. Then there are those who believe that healthcare is a right, and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure it is available to all citizens, not just those who can afford

This plan would result in a dearth of money needed for the government funded program as employers chose high deductible private plans over the federal one. This would result in a lower standard of health care and not allow all the benefits of a single payer system. Most industrialized nations around the world have implemented national health care systems to properly protect their populace. It is past time that the United States do the same.

Due to the upcoming presidential election, the two major political parties, and their candidates, have been focusing on the primary problems that the nation will face. Chief among those problems is the future of Medicare, the national health-insurance plan. Medicare was enacted in 1965, under the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, in order to provide health insurance for retired citizens and the disabled (Ryan). The Medicare program covers most people aged 65 or older, as well as handicapped people who enroll in the program, and consists of two health plans: a hospital insurance plan (part A) and a medical insurance plan (part B) (Marmor 22). Before Medicare, many Americans didn't have health

Government financed health care typically has more control to place limitations on care offered to patients and doctors in order to keep costs down. Since payers must try to deliver the most care for the

Touching on the interaction of the government on healthcare comes with the overall distrust of the government. A common trend observed in many polls shows that the public does not feel the government will do what’s right when the time calls for it. Although it comes from the mistrust of the opposers of healthcare reform, this pushes the idea that some people feel that the government has too much of a role in healthcare. This illustrates that possibly that the government could cut programs inside healthcare to benefit themselves rather than the public. Approximately 19 percent of the polled public in 2010 thought that the government handles healthcare reform properly keeping the general public at its best interest. Although a substantial number (percentage), it has improved overall decreasing from 69 percent in 1965 when the birth of Medicare was seen.