What Is Universal Health Coverage

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

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 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.

Another issue contributing to the high cost of health care is inefficient use of premium dollars from insurance companies. I am proud to say that the insurance company I work for does a great job of making proper use of insurance premiums. As a company we use on average 8 cents of every premium dollar. This means that 92 Percent of each dollar goes to paying patient's claims and building reserves. Unfortunately this is not as common as it should be. According to Harvard's David Cutler who is among the country's foremost health economists, our administrative costs for health care equal one quarter of the cost of health care today. By comparison, the next closest country spends around 10 to 15 percent on administrative costs (2013, para. 4 and 6). There are many things that could be done to lower administrative costs.

There are dramatic differences between the history, design and funding of the U.S. method of providing health care and

A. At this current moment, there are hundreds of payers called insurance companies. With the universal healthcare, we can put an end to insurance companies so that they are all replaced with just a single payer.

Impact to Healthcare organizations - These increases in cost raise questions of health care expenses at the hospital level. As higher profits are sought, the cost will become unstable for all, thus causing many to postpone going to the doctor. However, there are many complicated problems associated with our healthcare system. We will focus on main issues that can correct many related problems within the current structure. More importantly, we need to find ways to ensure all Americans have access to health care; and we need to hone in on how we can get the best value for the $2 trillion dollars we spend annually on healthcare.

In 2007, more than 45 million Americans did not have health care insurance. The United States is the only industrialized major nation in the world without health care, and the debate about changing that has become a popular issue recently. The sharp difference between the two sides is a difference in ethical values; those for universal health care desire to see the government help others, mainly the lower class, and those who do not, wish that private companies be allowed to continue taking advantage of the status quo for profit. In this paper, I will argue why the Government should put in place The Universal Healthcare Systems.[1]

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

America is known for democracy, freedom, and the American Dream. American citizens have the right to free speech, free press, the right to bear arms, and the right to religious freedom to name a few. The Declaration of Independence states that American citizens have the rights including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America promises equality and freedom and the protection of their rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But with all the rights and freedoms that American citizens enjoy, there is one particular area where the United States seems to be lacking. That area is health care. The United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some form of legal

According to World Health Organization, “Universal Health Coverage means that all people and communities can use the promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative health services they need, of sufficient quality to be effective, while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user to financial hardship”. (WHO.int) By doing so, we give the people the opportunity to be equal to the rest of the society. Since the cost of a healthcare plan is beyond most people’s budget in the United States, the average person spends more money on healthcare insurance than groceries and housing together. This condition leads many to have no coverage at all. In fact, there are over 45 million uninsured residents in the U.S. in it

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

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.

During the beginning of this era, reformers had the support of President Theodore Roosevelt who thoroughly believed “that no country could be strong whose people were sick and poor”. In 1915, a bill was proposed by the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL) that limited coverage to working class individuals whose annual income was less than $1200 a year and included hospital services, sick pay, maternity benefits, and funeral expenses (Palmer, 1999). This system was believed to “relieve poverty caused by sickness” and would “yield a net savings for society” that would benefit not only citizens but businesses as well (Toland, 2014). Opinions on the AALL bill were mixed. The American Medical Association (AMA) was included in the formulation of the bill, leading them to create a committee whose entire aim was to assist the AALL but a disagreement over physician payment led the AMA to redact their support (Palmer, 1999). The American Federation of Labor continuously spoke against universal health care, fearing that it would result in complete state supervision over citizen’s health and would undermine current worker unions and the benefits they provided. Within all of this was also the strong opposition of the private insurance industry which, oddly enough, rested on the inclusion of death benefits in the AALL bill which had

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.