Socialized Medicine and the Current Healthcare Debate

The United States is known as one of the greatest world powers: however it is held back by its weak healthcare system. As of 2010 the US healthcare system currently ranks the 37th best out of 190 countries (Murray). Before the introduction of the Affordable Care Ac in 2010, the United States had an individual insurance market. It was the responsibility of the individual or their employer to take care of their healthcare costs. On top of this, millions of people could be denied insurance by different agencies due to pre-existing claims. Healthcare was expensive, but the costs were nothing compared to the medical bills owed by an uninsured person. Universal healthcare is a basic right not a privilege. Everyone should be given the

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’.

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

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

Socialized Medicine and the Health Care Reform are two different types of Health Care programs. Socialized includes everything related to Health Care, where the Health Care Reform cover mainly health insurance and cutting cost. One form of socialized medicine is Great Britain National Health Service or NHS.

In Canada or Great Britain, the government funds healthcare providers through taxes, and such a system is called social. The United States, on the other hand, being a profoundly capitalistic country, opted for another route and passed the burden of healthcare spending on private consumers as well as other

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 medicine, single-payer healthcare, or government subsidized healthcare. These are all different terms for describing the same system of healthcare that is universally available to a society regardless of income, race, gender, pre-existing condition, or wealth. This topic is highly controversial, with valid arguments supporting both ends of the spectrum and a wide array of perspectives that come into play when governments decide where to fall between privatized and publicized healthcare systems. Universal healthcare should be implemented because when the government is responsible, for for all its citizens, a healthier population is inspired, corruption is prevented, and support is given to those who cannot support themselves. This

During the past 5 years we have heard a great deal of rhetoric regarding socialism and healthcare as a result of the passing of the Affordable Care Act, particularly in how ACA compares to socialized medicine in England and the UK. The concerns of the people regarding socialism are important as our country is founded on capitalist principals, and to change those principals requires a complete shift in our thinking. A close look at the systems in question reveals important aspects for consideration; indeed it is important to be aware of the potential future of the ACA. While the English National Healthcare System and the

A single payer national health care program could save American?s billions of dollars currently being spent on health care and insurance. A 2000 report by John Sheils and Randall Haught of the Lewin group on the costs and impact of a health care system in the state of Maryland showed that a single payer system implemented in that state would save its citizens 346.8 million dollars a year.(3) The majority of savings from this would come from vast reductions in administrative costs associated with insurance companies and the filing of claims. Sheils also reports that the average family would spend 261 dollars less each year on health costs (7). John Canham-Clyne notes in his book The Rational Option that a single payer bill proposed in the Senate was estimated to save the American public $110 billion a year by the Congressional Budget Office(24). The savings

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.

Obesity, abusers of healthcare, and people who make bad decisions like smoking suggests that socialized medicine in the United States would have a negative impact such as high cost and controversy even though it works in places like Canada or the UK their prices for a doctor are incredibly cheap compared to the United Sates and insurance is too big of a money maker here.

While there is an ongoing debate on the application of socialized health care versus that of private health care, there is certainly that a socialist approach to providing health care for everyone is attractive to numerous numbers of people and has a number of benefits. One of the benefits is that the program is available for all people, regardless of social or economic standing; this type of universal health care appears to lessen the chance that a person with no health insurance will choose to not seek health care in the event of an illness (Kratzke 2010). One of the underlying principles of socialized health care is that every citizen of a given country has an inherent human right to receive at least a minimal standard of medical attention.

Proponents of socialized medicine claim that the government is capable of adequately developing a universal healthcare system that would cover all health expenses, eliminate unnecessary costs, and ensure health coverage for everyone.