Single Payer Healthcare System

In 2010, the United States created The Affordable Care Act (ACA). The objective was to share the responsibility of costs between the government, individuals, and employers to provide affordable access to quality health insurance. “However, health coverage remains fragmented, with numerous private and public sources, as well as wide gaps in insured rates across the U.S. population.” (“United States: International Health Care System Profiles,” n.d.). Each individual state within the US, generally has control over private insurance.

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.

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.

The U.S. health care system faces challenges that indicate that the people urgently need to be reform. Attention has rightly focused on the approximately 46 million Americans who are uninsured, and on the many insured Americans who face rapid increases in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. As Congress and the Obama administration consider ways to invest new funds to reduce the number of Americans without insurance coverage, we must simultaneously address shortfalls in the quality and efficiency of care that lead to higher costs and to poor health outcomes. To do otherwise casts doubt on the feasibility and sustainability of coverage expansions and also ensures that our current health care system will continue to have large gaps even for those with access to insurance coverage.

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.

I will compare the current health care system with the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that became law on March 23, 2010.   The current system, which is being phased out between 2011 and 2018 is increasingly inaccessible to many poor and lower-middle-class people. About 47 million Americans lack health insurance, an increase of more than two million people from 2005 (Rover, 2011) the increasingly complex warfare between insurers and hospitals over who pays the bills is gobbling up a great deal of money and the end result is that the United States pays roughly twice as much per

Brian became aware of his testicular cancer five years ago. Despite insurance, Brian still owed thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Over the course of three years, he built relationships with nurses, doctors, and the hospital staff during treatments and follow up appointments. Without warning or explanation, the insurance company no longer accepted his hospital as a provider under their plans. He doubted any other hospital staff could provide the physical and emotional support his previous providers gave and wondered how to replace the people who had been there during the toughest times of his life (Salmon). The current health care system in America affects people physically, emotionally, and financially. “Costs are enormous, yet Americans do not fare better, and often fare worse, than citizens in countries which spend substantially less on health care” (Cicconi).

It has been six years since the Affordable Care Act has been implemented into the United States healthcare system. As the pieces and provisions of this monumental federal statute become understood and executed, it is transforming the demand for care. Prior to the ACA, a significant number of Americans were marginalized and unable to obtain coverage. This system was faced increasing healthcare costs, placing greater financial strain to everyday Americans, businesses, and public health insurance systems. The ACA did not only help ensure health coverage for all (almost

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

Besides the general purpose of providing healthcare to all, the idea of government healthcare is that there is a single-payer as opposed to multiple insurance companies as well as government payers. All citizens are considered insured and only charged based on each individual’s “ability to pay” (MacDonald, 2013). This insurance would be paid for by the single-payer, the government, though the taxation of its citizens. Examples of this type of system can be seen in countries such as Canada and Sweden, as well as our own Department of Veterans Affairs ' VA health system. The idea of a nation-wide single-payer system has remained fairly popular in the United States due to the popularity and acceptance of the government’s Medicare program. In MacDonald’s article, “Healthcare reform: Socialized medicine?”, he quotes Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Washington, D.C.: "No matter where you move in the country, you keep your Medicare," she says. "It allows you to go to any doctor or hospital you choose, and it 's not wildly expensive given the relatively expensive population it serves." (2013) Opinions such as these are what is fueling the desire of U.S. citizens to evolve our multi-payer system into a universal single-payer system. This would eliminate competing private insurance plans and exclusion of patients from coverage due to their existing health status (Kemble, 2012). Overall, a single-payer system appears to be a more equal, streamline

Health care in the United States is driven by a patchwork of services and financing. Americans access health care services in a variety of ways — from private physicians’ offices, to public hospitals, to safety-net providers. This diverse network of health care providers is supported by an equally diverse set of funding streams. The United States spends almost twice as much on health care as any other country, topping $2 trillion each year. (WHO.INT 2000) However, even with overall spending amounting to more than $7,400 per person, millions of individuals cannot access the health care services they need.(Foundation 2009) So when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a the Affordable Care Act or ACA) was passed in the summer

While America has more doctors per one-thousand people the doctor office waits would be dreadful, it would be similar to waiting at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Under a single-payer health care system, patients would have to wait to schedule an appointment then wait for an additional time to see the doctor, much like the Department of Motor Vehicles. Michael Tanner and Cannon both strengthen this analogy by stating that “the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks” in Sweden and “some will probably die awaiting treatment” (Cannon and Tanner). They also wrote that nearly nine-hundred thousand British citizens were awaiting treatment at a National Health Service hospital and over fifty-thousand surgeries were canceled, most likely due to lack of resources (Tanner and

There is an ongoing debate regarding the potency of the new health care reform—Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—from the outset of its proposal. Many attempts had been presented in the past years but the root of the issue remains prevalent today, that there is a lack of quality in its delivery and the cost of care is continuously increasing beyond national economic edges. In this manuscript, we will discuss several factors that can positively sway the long-term significance, impact, and structure of the United States health care system. Many are wondering whether the Universal Coverage, to which will give more control and

It's since the whole notion of well being insurance relies on govt intervention, not a free market. In a free market, coverage companies would be capable to freely accumulate premiums even as finding excuses not to pay clinical fees. It could be within the best print, that they would not have got to pay besides small quantities in wonderful occasions. But the kind of government intervention now we have now's highly inefficient and wasteful. We ought to repair that. A single payer method appears to be the one way feasible to make it effective. But even that is going to be particularly wasteful unless we will someway do it

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.