The Pros And Cons Of The Swedish Healthcare System

The United States spends much more money than Sweden does for healthcare, and we don't get as much coverage. The differences of our health care is tremendous and this is why.

Especially considering the high volume of work related injuries and how terribly these workers would get injured. Millions injured for months on end did not sound appealing to private insurers. While those who can afford it are paying for coverage from private insurers on top of paying taxes to fund America’s paranoia of the Middle East, Russia or China, depending on the day. Rather than using the tax money to provide health to it’s citizens, we have built bombs, guns, and fighter planes. On the contrary, about 90% of work done within the Swedish county councils is in relation to providing and governing health care so that it’s citizens are able to hold on to their safety. They primarily utilize citizens income tax money on providing affordable healthcare for everyone. It is highly noticeable that Sweden has made providing health care for their citizens a priority since the beginning of their history. The down side to government funded health care is that doctors have less power, so to speak. They are paid less than their American counterparts. Instead of being paid by commission for each individual patient’s hospital visit, they became salary based employees of the county. Although Sweden provides healthcare to everyone of their citizens, there are also private insurance company that citizens may choose from should they have the means and dissatisfactory of the state provided one. Although the likelihood that people purchase insurance for private companies is a low 1%. Many wonder why there is a difference in how the American government provides health insurance for their citizens in comparison to the Swedish government. The reason for this lies within the history and development of the differing countries. History plays a major role for how a society is developed both physically and psychosocially as

"Universal healthcare refers to a healthcare system that provides benefits to all persons in a particular country." (Definition of "Universal Healthcare Coverage", Investopedia.com). This form of healthcare is used among the richest countries, Ex. Canada and France. Other rich countries that use the Universal Healthcare system spend far less than the United States does. Although the U.S spends more on healthcare, “The U.S ranks 28th below almost all other rich countries, when it comes to the quality of its healthcare assessed by UN parameters (pdf, p.13)"(Annalisa Merreli, A history of why the US is the only rich country without universal healthcare, qz.com). These statistics call for a change. The United States should adopt universal healthcare because it would benefit business, provide equal access to healthcare, and is a human right.

Countries that outperform the U.S. address these issues through universal health insurance, stronger primary care systems, payment approaches that minimize billing conflicts, and greater investment in social supports that lead to better health” (Squires,2017).

The idea is to create a government-run health care plan that would be an alternative to the private insurance plans offered under the Affordable Care Act, or provide a fallback in markets where insurers have been pulling out. A public option could also be a way to stabilize the exchanges because a government-run plan could be used to enroll the people with the most expensive medical conditions. The private insurers would be more enthusiastic about selling policies because they might have to worry less about losses. Public option is simply a public health insurance agency, typically a government-run agency that can compete with the private insurers. This is sort of a half-way point between single payer and the pre- ACA private market. Almost

The Danes value quality healthcare and it is paid for through income taxes. Healthcare activity and outcomes are decided at a county and municipal level. They have two sectors of care. The sectors include primary care and hospital care ("The Danish Health Care System," n.d.). Total expenditure on health in 2014 was 10.8 percent. In addition the total expenditure on health in 2014 per capita was 4,782 ("Countries Denmark," 2015).

Waiting for medical attention is not a friendly process. The process can have serious consequences for both patients, and those working within the healthcare system (Barua, Esmail, & Jackson, 2014). Delaying access to health care may cause increased pain and suffering in patients and could even lead to severe mental health consequences (Barua, Esmail, & Jackson, 2014). Waiting for health care can also lead to economic consequences, such as reduced productivity, reduce the ability to work for an individual

The US health care system is can be difficult to understand since “many parts of the system are run by hundreds of individual organizations, including the government, nonprofit, and for profit enterprises (Understanding the US Healthcare system, 2015). Breaking down the US health care system into different parts will make it easier to understand, while showing the pros and cons, and how it impacts the role of nurses. Formally, I will do the same to Norway’s health care system and spot the similarities or differences with how each one is being run.

The Government is a very important body as a stake in the health-care sector. Policies, Acts, and reforms are enacted and passed by the Government for adequate and better healthcare to meet the needs of its people. Insurance policies are one of the many ways that most States use to provide affordable and quality health care to every citizen. Although some of the laws may not have had a great impact towards the health-care, many have improved the services offered to the health-care consumer (Schmeer, 2016). Moreover, the government is also responsible for developing up policies which help in regulating the health

On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.

In this paper, the USA healthcare system is being compared to the Canadian healthcare system. The U.S. health system has been described as the most competitive, heterogeneous, and inefficient, fragmented, and advanced system of care in the

Nationally, Norway’s parliament serves as the political decision-making body for health care. They are responsible for planning and subsidizing the education of health personnel, they develop and implement national health policies, and they are responsible for the funding of national health care. The Norwegian health care system is primarily funded by taxes but is supplemented by state grants and some user charges. National Insurance Scheme (NIS) was created in 1967 by the Norwegian government. It is a universal, tax-funded, single payer health system that covers 100 percent of the Norwegian citizens and residents, unless they opt out of it. The health status of the Norwegian population is considered one of the best in the world; yet, in 2003 Norway only spent 10.3% of their gross domestic product on health care. (4) The United States spends a much higher percent of our gross domestic product than Norway, yet our life expectancy in the United States is ranked 27th. Norway’s life expectancy is ranked 14th. The difference in spending is felt to be caused by inflated prices for health care services in the United States. (3)

The Danish government spent 9.5% of its GDP on Healthcare in 2006, whereas only 0.19% of the GDP was spent on Oral Health in the same year (Kravitz & Treasure, 2009). The government pays approximately 85% of the national costs of health care, while the remaining 15% come from individuals through co payments for treatments (Kravitz & Treasure, 2009). However, for dental care it’s almost the opposite, government only funds 20% of the national cost for adult dental services and the remaining 80% is paid by the dentist (Kravitz & Treasure, 2009).

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.

In the term of health care system structure, there are three providers of health service are: public hospitals, non-profit hospitals (run by the German Red Cross) and private hospitals. All people should have health insurance. That means insurance is obligatory matter and it plays a major role in the structure of Germany health system. There are two main types of health insurance in Germany. The first type is Compulsory Insurance (also know as Public Insurance or SHI). The second type is Private Insurance (also know as PHI). The situation of an individual; age, health and income determines which kind of insurance is best for him/her. In compulsory (public) insurance just the person’s income considered in order to determines the rate of the insurance. People with high income pay more than those with lower income to get their insurance. Age and health are not considered. The compulsory insurances offered by many companies in Germany, and there are main benefits selected by the government must be covered by every public insurance