Health insurance in this country can trace its early origins back to 1847, when the plans were offered that provided disability compensation to participants, then, beginning in the 1930’s, insurance became more focused on financing the costs due to illness (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2016). Unlike countries that have a single national program to fund medical services for their citizens, the United States currently relies on a multi-payer system to finance health care (Gusamano & Rodwin, n.d., p.55). Utilizing this multi-payer system certainly has implications within many areas of this nation’s health care delivery and its favorable impact over a single payer system for three of these; quality of care, timely access to treatment, and …show more content…
According to one source, the disincentive of lower pay resulting from a single-payer source would dissuade many qualified people from making the arduous commitment necessary to become physicians (Book, 2009). The loss of this country’s potentially best and brightest future doctors would be an unfortunate aside in the quest for obtaining quality medical care. Further, lower profits would likely result in less investment into the latest medical technologies (Book, 2009), making it more difficult to receive the best and most advanced quality care available. In a comparison of the U.S. multi-payer system to Canada’s single-payer system on a technological front, the U.S. had one MRI per 130,800 citizens to Canada’s one per 572,000 and the U.S. had one CT scanner per 73,000 people, opposed to Canada’s one per 123,500 in 1997 (Ridic, Gleason, & Ridic, 2012). This emphasizes a possible negative direction that state-of-the-art quality care may take in this country in the face of single-payer financial …show more content…
The multi-payer insurance system in the U.S. derives its revenue from both private and public sources, while a single-payer system is predominately financed through tax revenues managed by the government (Gusamano & Rodwin, n.d., p. 55). Therefore, single-payer systems are more subject to governmental environment changes, especially when tax cuts or health care policy change become the focus of a particular political agenda, and thus, may fall victim to the prevailing political ideology (Reinhardt, 2007). Democrats often favor the prospect of a single-payer system while republicans oppose it and work to deconstruct efforts in developing this entity (Sparer & Thompson, n.d., p.32-33). This may predispose a single-payer system to be undone through the partiality of this country’s governing majority (Reinhardt, 2007). This eventuality would leave the country with a health care conundrum. Thus, a multi-payer system that incorporates a provision for universal coverage makes the most
In the article, it says that more than thirty percent of Americans support this push to have a personalized plan. The Pew Research Center reported that 60% of the population said that the government should ensure health care coverage but 39% said that the government should not which brings up a question, where is the other 1% leaning. The influence of private investors, companies and government programs have completely taken over the health care system so the core roots of what was originally established have been somewhat lost. Pharmaceutical companies are very against the push to single-payer health care because it jeopardizes their profit off their patients. Looking at how the investors see Obamacare is that they get to control the prices of medications, they mandate how much a procedure may cost and it can fluctuate depending on where you want to seek care. The single-payer option completely discards the monopolies out of health care and also underpays physicians. "In a single-payer system," Dr. Michael Accad from San Francisco says, "planners decide arbitrarily what the payments should be, and payments fall because there are no competitors and no choice for providers to bid up payments." A study did show that primary care physicians received higher pay with Medicare rather than a centralized system such as Canada. Dr. Accad says that single-payer systems in Canada, the United Kingdom, and other developed
Politics and policy have had an unceasing notion played on by politicians throughout American history for each political party. In this current presidential election, with the new president elect Donald Trump, controversy over universal health care has become a heated debate once more. Since the time of Harry Truman in 1948 when the concept of universal health care was first introduced to the more conservative American public, Democrats and Republicans have fought over the expansion of health care policy regulations within the United States (Blumenthal, D., Morone, J., 2016). Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, while Democrats have the polar perspective of building and expanding the Act (Strassel,
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.
There have been many studies performed focusing on the rising costs of health care and some of the findings state that the rising cost of healthcare premiums is a worldwide problem. However, I believe they are higher in the U.S. In 2015, U.S. health care costs were $3.2 trillion. That makes healthcare one of the largest U.S. industries, equaling 17.8 % of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in comparison to the late 1960s; where healthcare costs were only $27 billion, or 5% of the GDP, which averaged $9,990 per person each year. The main reason for the rising cost of healthcare is a combination of government policies and lifestyles changes. Examples included lack of coverage or costly coverage, lack of available coverage for
Since the advent of health insurance in the 1950s, there have been many models of care that are come to the scene in an attempt to both control cost of care and improve quality of care. Insurance models came into being because the fee for service model used until then was proving to increase cost of healthcare without any measure of quality of services and care provided. Health insurance models have evolved from the basic hospital offered insurance to employer sponsored coverage plans. The US health system is broken both financially and quality wise with more than 20% of gross domestic product being spent on healthcare (Blackstone, 2016).
While campaigning for the 2016 presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed that America should adopt a single-payer health care system. In Sanders’s plan, there would have been only one insurance program that would have covered everyone in the United States; in effect, other programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and especially private insurance would be discontinued (Holahan, 2016, p. 1). If Sanders’s proposal were to be carried out, it would be a drastic change from the current system which predominately comprises of private insurance and hospitals under limited government regulations. The debate reopened on whether or not a single-payer system would be an effective system health care system or economically viable. Due to the contrasting nature of current health care system in the United States, policymakers should approach proposals of single-payer health care systems with caution and an understanding of the benefits and the drawbacks by examining the successes and failures of real-world systems.
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
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
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare is a healthcare reform law that is intended to reform the health care system by providing Americans with affordable quality health insurance by controlling the growth in healthcare spending. Some critics of the Affordable Care Act say the ACA has not provided universal coverage, and one way to fix this is to adopt a “single-payer system.” I agree with these critics on the counts of the Single Payer System being a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Doctors and patients regaining healthcare freedom, the accessibility of full coverage, and with financial benefits, the Single Payer System should be adopted by America today.
U.S. health care reform is currently one of the most heavily discussed topics in health discourse and politics. After former President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care reform in the mid-1990s, the Bush administration showed no serious efforts at achieving universal health coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans. With Barack Obama as the current U.S. President, health care reform is once again a top priority. President Obama has made a promise to “provide affordable, comprehensive, and portable health coverage for all Americans…” by the end of his first term (Barackobama.com). The heated debate between the two major political parties over health care reform revolves around how to pay for it and more importantly, whether it
Moreover, with a single-payer system patients are not restricted with their choice of provider; making accessibility even better. Many patients do not take advantage of their health insurance because they are only allowed to see certain providers. A patient with a bad insurance can only be allowed to see low cost providers with bad quality. Having a single-payer system will also eliminate bad quality care by only funding those who truly want to be in the field. A single-payer system can give many a peace of mind and improve their overall
Health care is a highly political topic, and the issue of whether or not to make health care, universal is at the center of the controversy (Rich & Walter, 2015). Health care is a vital component of day-to-day life, and as such it has not been left entirely in the hands of private ownership. There are regulations in place to ensure people receive quality health care at a relatively low price. Universal health care would just expand these already existing regulations while opening up health insurance to the masses. Universal health care has a role in the American Health care system, but only as a supplement to the private insurance model.
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
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.
US health care expenditures have been rising quickly over the past few years; it has risen more than the national financial system. Nonetheless a number of citizens in the US still lack appropriate health care. If the truth be told, health care expenditures are going to continue to increase; in addition numerous individuals will possibly have to make difficult choices pertaining to their health care. Our health system has grave problems that require reform, through reforming, there is optimism that there will be an increase in affordable health care and high-quality of care for America. Medicaid, Medicare and private sector insurances are all going through trials and tribulations because of