The Multi Vs Single Payer System

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.

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.

What’s next? Some experts say that if the consumer-directed approach doesn’t succeed, em wash their hands of health care altogether. A recent study by the Employee Benefit Researc showed that the proportion of U.S. residents covered by employment-based health benefits d percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2004. Decades from now, observers may conclude that a counter- revolution in employer coverage began in these early years of the 21st century. —Terence F. Shea

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.

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.

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

One of the issues that is widely discussed and debated concerning the United States economy is the healthcare system. Unlike in the majority of developed and developing countries, the healthcare system in the United States is not public, meaning that the state does not provide free or cheap healthcare services. This paper addresses many of the factors contributing to the rising cost of healthcare.

The U.S. is an industrialized nation that continues to be behind on providing health care coverage to all citizens. However, the German health care system came up with a plan that ensured all citizens are provided with some form of health care coverage; nevertheless, the U.S. continues to dispute health care reform and how to provide coverage to all citizens. “Health spending per capita in the United States is much higher than in other countries – at least $2,535 dollars, or 51%, higher than Norway, the next largest per capita spender. Furthermore, the United States spends nearly double the average $3,923 for the 15 countries ("Health Care Cost," 2011, table 1)”.

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

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

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

The patient population is mostly affected by the healthcare industry (Su et al., 2009). There are many aspects of the healthcare industry that can affect the patient, but the cost is probably the biggest concern of consumers. When consumers talk about health care cost, they mean how much will cost them. Therefore, consumers' use of health care has a direct relation to the out of pocket expenses. The less the out of pocket the more the consumer will use the health care services. This can drive to higher costs to the payer (health care insurance) which can raise then the health care premium. The same expectation of paying the least possible drives the consumer to search for the insurances that are more appealing in this respect. Employers as

Access to quality care. Medical costs have risen so that employers have shifted more of the medical costs to the plan members therefore increasing the uninsured rate. Also with the rise of medical cost, employers could opt not to provide any medical benefits to their employees. This leaves the employee purchasing health and medical insurance with their out of pocket monies. The consumers have changed from an organization that provided medical services to enrollees for a prepared fixed fee to plans that make contractual arrangements with providers for services at discounted prices. In doing this the consumers get a larger range of networks

In President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, a list of proposed economic rights to which the president believed all Americans were entitled was enumerated in what is now popularly referred to as the “Economic Bill of Rights” (Roosevelt). Among the rights listed was “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” (Ibid). Seventy-one years on, this proposed right is rather poorly guaranteed, if at all. Even after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the Census Bureau reported that 10.4% of the US population, approximately 33 million people, was uninsured throughout 2014, severely limiting their access to healthcare (Radnofsky). The United States ought to guarantee universal access to healthcare through a single-payer system because it is ethical and practical while alternative plans fail to provide sufficient benefit.