Sweden 's Health Care System

The healthcare systems of Switzerland and the United States are quite similar in some aspects and vastly different in others. In Switzerland, the healthcare is universal and available to all. It is provided by private individual insurance companies and subsidized by the government when needed. Basic health insurance is required to be purchased within 3 months of residency or after birth and is an individual’s choice as to what carrier they choose. Of course, there are exceptions to this mandate but they are very few.("Healthcare in Switzerland," “n.d.”, para. 1) Because of this requirement, 99.5% of the population in Switzerland has

Health care systems are different in every country around the world. There are four main components that complete a health care delivery system, described by Shi and Singh (2015) as the quad-function model, which includes insurance, financing, payment and delivery of care (p. 5). Along with the components of the quad-function model it is important to analyze a countries access to care, their health outcomes and how public health is integrated into the health care delivery system. The United States has a unique health care system that is like no other country. Great Britian, in contrast, also has a unique system that is very different than the United States.

beginning of Sweden’s long history of providing medical care to all. In 1946, Sweden adopted a national health insurance program called The National Health Insurance Act. This act called for coverage for all citizens funded mainly by the government through local income tax revenue with control being in the hands of county governments. This includes providing dental care up until a person is 20. Not ideal, yet more than the United States government has been willing to implement. So why doesn’t The United States have universal health care for it’s tax paying citizens? The United States government has developed on the back of a different psychosocial mentality in comparison to Sweden. America was built upon the disposition and belief that

The first characteristic of the US health care system is that there is no central governing agency which allows for little integration and coordination. While the government has a great influence on the health care system, the system is mostly controlled through private hands. The system is financed publically and privately creating a variety of payments and delivery unlike centrally controlled healthcare systems in other developed countries. The US system is more complex and less manageable than centrally controlled health care systems, which makes it more expensive. The second characteristic of the US health care system is that it is technology driven and focuses on acute care. With more usage of high technology,

Finding a healthcare system that is beneficial and affordable for the country’s citizens is challenging and often seems impossible due to the high price of medical care and the broad spectrum of healthcare issues that insurance plans must cover. The debate of a healthcare system which is affordable, effective, and accessible for the majority of the population is a topic of great discussion. The United States and Switzerland health care systems are prime examples of this debate. The United States has The Affordable Care Act, or Obama Care as it is commonly known in Switzerland residents have a Universal Health Care System. While both systems provide health care to their residents, they each have good and less desirable aspects to them.

According to Joe Conason, "America 's current health care system wastes considerably more than a trillion dollars every year. We know that because countries such as France, Germany, Japan and Finland, with comparable standards of living to ours, spend roughly half what the United States spends annually on health care per citizen, while covering everyone and achieving better results." (Conason, 2009) The United States healthcare financial systems are severely flawed - affecting the overall cost control, services, and care made accessible to its clients. The rising costs in healthcare are reaching new highs, and with rising costs, there doesn 't seem to be much change in the quality of the care being given. Clients coming in and out of these

In 2015 Denmark had a population of 5,699,000 within their Scandinavia geographic region ("Countries Denmark," 2015). The Danish have a culture of high living standards and well-being. It is a developed country that’s population is ranked above average in life expectancy (OECD Publishing, 2016). The average life expectancy for males is seventy – two. The women are expected to live until eighty- two years old ("Countries Denmark," 2015).

Besides assessing the current state of America’s healthcare system, the historical perspective of America’s healthcare sector demonstrated how it evolved to be this way and it allows the public to understand the potential impediments to reform. The professionalization of medicine and the emergence of insurance companies has been a long and gradual process. Several previous Presidents have developed blueprints for healthcare reform with varying degrees of success. This section explores the growth of healthcare in America from its colonial days throughout the twentieth century.

This paper presents a comparison of the health care systems in the United States and the Netherlands. The health care systems in the United States and the Netherlands are both a work in progress. This paper compares the many common strengths and weaknesses between these two countries health care systems using recent data and current trends. The government of the Netherlands has been working towards providing universal health coverage for their citizens since World War II. The government of the United States is divided on the necessity of providing universal health coverage for its citizens; however, it appears to be moving in this direction. The United States approximately 70 years behind the Netherlands on the health care front. Comparing the similarities and differences in the health care systems of the United States and the Netherlands gives a lot of insight into policy changes and reform that could benefit the United States. The continually improving health care system in the Netherlands may be the best model for the United States as it moves towards a Universal Health Care system.

Australia is a two tiered system including a private and public sector. Medicare is a universal health insurance scheme under the public system. It was introduced on the 1st of February 1984 by the Australian Labor party the principal is for all Australian to have equal access to health. There are three levels of government these include Local, State or territory and Federal, all three have different roles to perform in terms of health care. The local government is responsible for towns and districts, moreover, local councils or shires function is to operate systems and projects such as sewage, garbage disposals and maintenance of the safety food standard. Both state and federal direct different parts of Medicare. State government manages public hospital within their territory or state, the state government receives 40%-50% of the total cost of expenditures for the public hospital from the Federal government. Lastly, Federal role includes payments to primary health services there include GPs, the majority of nurses, medical specialists and allied health professionals. In 1996 Budget guaranteed the renewal of private health insurance.

In Sweden it is the Local government responsibility for welfare services. It was from the 13th century that the first local legislation was seen as the responsibility of the local parish to take care of the poor (Bergmark & Minas, 2006, p.15). The Swedish health system for

The health care system of Norway is committed to providing health care services for all citizens regardless of income and to the principle of equal access to services. Accordingly, the health status of Norwegians is one of the best in the world, ranking much higher than that of the United States.

Denmark is a small high-income country with a high population density, is governed by a constitutional monarchy, has a central parliament and is administratively divided into regions, municipalities and has 2 dependencies (Greenland and the Faroe Islands) (Kravitz & Treasure, 2009). It has a national health service (funded by general taxation) and a decentralized healthcare system in which the individual regions run most services and the municipalities are responsible for some public health services (Kravitz & Treasure, 2009). However, a process of (re) centralization (under the structural reform of 2007) has been taking place, which has lowered the number of regions from 14 to 5 and the

• Old-age pensioners who have been in a statutory health insurance scheme or insured as a family member for most of the latter half of their working life.

There are pros and cons for any health care system researched. Obviously no country in the world has perfected the job of balancing supply and demand in a cost effect manner. Everyone has complaints about how the government runs things in their country and everyone has horror stories about how they have been treated at some point by the medical profession. After all of my research I believe that Sweden has incorporated many good aspects of service while only having a few downfalls. With continued reform Sweden’s healthcare system could become a highly efficient system.