Socialized Health Care Vs Private Healthcare

Some health care costs may be paid by the patient and some health care costs may be covered by the universal health insurance program. There is perhaps no domain of economic activity that has generated more controversy in the United States than health care. In the advanced capitalist world, the United States is the only country within which the market plays a substantial role in the delivery of health care services; all other countries have one form or another of universal, publicly supported health care policies. In other intance if we differ from what is universal health from socialized heatlh. Some people refer to universal health care as socialized medicine. The term “socialized medicine” is primarily used for only in the United States by those who do not support the idea of universal health care(cite). Given the understanding that outside the US, is a different situation saying that the terms most used are universal health care or public health

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

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’.

Imagine a nation where one did not have to worry about deductibles, high monthly insurance rates, and being denied health care. Is this possible? Can the United States (U.S.) have this or is such a nation fiction? Michael Moore, known documentary filmmaker, set out on a mission. This mission was featured in his documentary, Sicko. The mission consisted of multiple rhetorical strategies to disclose the positive and negative effects of socialized health care. The great thing about this topic is that it’s applicable to a wide audience. From teenagers just starting to get health insurance, to people midway through their life that may have been burned by the industry, to seniors that need to still work in their eighties to pay off their health care bills. Moore gives good insight to both sides of the argument, and allows the audience to examine all factors. Through many accounts of Moore’s credibility, emotional connections, and pure facts; the audience is strongly convinced that the U.S. should move to a socialized health care system.

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

The U.S. spend billions of dollars every year on preventative care such as heart disease, cancer, AIDS and many more disease; millions more are spent on trying to find a cure for disease such as MS, MD, AIDS, cancer, polo and so many more. The advantage to the U.S. would come by way of universal health care as it is today. With different measures of insurance coverage, a person benefits more by having the freedom to choose which health care and insurance needs are suitable for them, rather than being confined to only one group (Chernichovsky & Leibowitz, 2010).

In Canada, a lot of debate has been raised in the last few years over the issue of "two-tier" healthcare. The public system is struggling, and there is a debate going on over whether or not private hospitals should be permitted. Universal healthcare is very cherished in Canada, but conservatives argue that introducing a private system will improve the burden on the public system. Those who oppose say that the creation of a two-tier system will result in one system that is better then the other, attracting the best doctors and the best equipment, and that those who can't afford private or do not wish to pay will only be able to obtain second-rate healthcare. Why should Canadians not have choices regarding the time, place, and nature of

Has the time come to consider socialized health care or some hybrid, why or why not. To help answer this question, we need understand what the definition of “socialized health care” means. According to definition found in Wikipedia (2016), “medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation.” The phrase “care for all at a nominal cost” sound like a goal that everybody wants, but when you add the phrase “by means of government regulation” after it, now the whole definition changes. The notion that government need to intervene to provide health care cost to all automatically instill in our psyche that our “freedom” is restricted to some degree. It says

One of the great hypocrisies of American culture is found in its health care system. The United States claims in its Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and that all of these men have the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet this is the same country that allows over 120 people to die each day because they are uninsured. How can this nation claim that all are created equal and have a right to life when they deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it? This issue has come on the scene relatively soon, having only truly been discussed beginning in the early 20th century. Since that time, a fear of socialism stemming from tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the century has placed a stigma on the concept of universal health care because it is similar to the Soviet’s socialized medicine. In recent years, President Obama made great strides toward universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, but some would argue that while America is on the right track, more can be done to care for the nation’s poor. Others argue that the economic impact of such policies could cause problems for America. Though creating a universal health care system has complex logistical and economic consequences, health care is an internationally acknowledged human right and should not be denied to the American people.

Health care has become a form of governmental oppression. There are little to no funding for preventative care as Shipler points out in his scathing review of the bureaucratic nightmare of merely staying healthy enough to go to school if you are poor (Shipler, 2004). America’s private health insurance industry makes it almost impossible for those of lesser financial means to have access to good health insurance (Shipler, 2004). Our economic state makes it impossibly expensive to eat healthy, let alone to practice healthy lifestyle habits that are not taught regularly. In addition, the health care providers themselves and those individuals with forced health care plans are faced with the enormous expenses of crooked insurance adjustors and giant malpractice insurance regimes (Shipler, 2004).

The economics of healthcare is not at all simple. What you put in is certainly not necessarily indicative of what you get out, as shown by the striking discrepancy between what we pay and what we get out of our healthcare system. This is demonstrated further by comparing our system to those of France and Italy, who come in first and second, respectively, in WHO’s international ranking of healthcare systems (“World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems”). Counter to what many Americans may believe, a number of European nations do not have completely socialized medicine.

Health care is an uprising issue today in the United States. I believe in order for health care or the medical field to succeed in the future that social contract should be enforced. By enforcing social contract, it will allow health care to be more efficient by allowing individuals to assume responsibility for their own healthy by having the ability to ensure health. According to The Enduring Democracy book, " from the philosophy of Jean- Jacques Rousseau, an agreement people make with one another to form a government and abide by its rules and laws, an in return the government promises to protect the people’s rights and welfare and promote their best interest"(Dautrich, 7). In other words, if people came to an agreement about health care

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

Socialized Healthcare is the act of giving people below the poverty line a way to have health coverage in case of something happening to them or their families. This is not a good idea because these people cannot afford for themselves so why should other people have to pay for them. I am writing this to tell you how “free” healthcare really is not free. The main points I will be covering are The United States’ healthcare system also known as Obamacare, The United Kingdom’s and Brazil’s systems that are failing.

I address the question: ‘Health care is always an important topic of debate. Often this debate occurs in terms that compare public versus private health care systems. After showing how the public option is associated with welfare state liberalism and the private option with neo-conservatism, which option do you prefer and why?’, and I argue that a public health care system reflects a stronger more stable country.