Which healthcare system is better between the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) is a very controversial topic in the world. There are many people siding with the US healthcare system yet there also many people siding with the UK healthcare system. There are many reasons behind the people., but I believe the US healthcare system is better.
The two healthcare systems are different for a few reasons. The main difference between the two healthcare systems is the fact that the UK offers a socialized healthcare system whereas the US offers an almost fully-private system. Also the UK system is free. Every British citizen has access to health care, paid through taxation. Another difference is that the US is mostly private which means it costs
…show more content…
Some are different than the other. For example, the US scarce resources in the healthcare system is prescription drugs, due to the costs of them. Some prescription drugs can be very expensive which makes them so scarce. If your insurance cannot cover it and have to pay out of pocket it could be very hard to get because some are overly priced. For the UK their scarce resources are the development of new technology, new treatments, and new drugs increases the NHS’s ability to supply, but at the same time encourages demand to such an extent that demand substantially exceeds supply. This creates long waiting lists and shortages of hospital beds. A privatised NHS would allow prices to rise to reflect the true cost of supply. This would, of course, violate the principle of free and universal treatment. However, rising costs have forced a re-think funding. The US healthcare system has different allocates to their resources than the UK healthcare system.
For the UK the government allocates their resources. They are heavily involved in their nation's healthcare system. As for the US, private companies in a free market system allocate their resources. The healthcare system in the UK is command based because it is run by the government. As for the US the healthcare system is market based because it is not run by the
The original ethos behind the NHS was the belief that, through the provision of universal and complete health care, free at the point of provision, the NHS would eliminate significant disease and thereby work itself out of a job. Clearly a naive view by today's standards, this ethic remains one of the problems of the NHS today: the electorate still believes that there is intrinsic value in a universal and complete NHS, although no-one can agree on exactly what constitutes 'complete' health care, and none can say what the actual benefit of attempting to provide this (rather than rationed care)...
An analysis of the US and Canada’s systems reveals advantages and drawbacks within each structure. While it is apparent that both countries could benefit from the adoption of portions of the others system, Canada’s healthcare system offers several benefits over the US system.
When it comes to health matters, everyone becomes attentive. People believe that with good health, one can virtually accomplish anything that they desire. This is the reason to as why health is given all the attention. It is important to have a clear understanding of the meaning of the term health, healthcare and systems that are put in place to facilitate healthcare.
While most countries around the world have some form of universal national health care system, the United States, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, does not. There are much more benefits to the U.S. adopting a dorm of national health care system than to keep its current system, which has proved to be unnecessarily expensive, complicated, and overall inefficient.
Healthcare is the maintenance or restoration of health by treatment from trained and licensed professionals (Webster). The American people faced many issues with the way the healthcare system is split up. There are four basic healthcare models the United States usescurrently. First, PBS describes that the Beveridge model, covered/ran by the government, through tax payments. This is the only model used in Great Britain but in America it only covers veterans and soldiers, in Great Britain everyone in the country has coverage by it . Another system model the US takes up is the Bismarck model,it helps people to buy their own health insurance through their employer (Healthcare Economist). Three main countries that use this model are Japan, Switzerland, and Germany whose ex-leader, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, created the Bismarck method of health care. Which not only covers 90% of their country but allowsthe rich 10% opt out (Reid&Palfreman). An Americans third model option takes of the ideas of both Beveridge and Bismarck and its name is the National Health Insurance (NHI), which Taiwan operates with. The NHI allows private providers to become a choice even though citizens. These four systems have been used for decades and President Obama has put a bill together to propose a change in America'shealthcare. The Affordable Care Act [Obamacare], will give coverage through employers, help people find their own insurance, or government coverage through Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for a 1/3 of others (KFF). Medicaid is offered for those with low income, but only states with governors and legislators who approve for this one actually benefit the KFF (Kaiser family foundation) explained. Those who don't have or want health insuranc...
Private health care is superior than the public health care system because it has efficient treatment, better individual care and is cost efficient. I think that the socialist health care system weakens a person's ability to reach a quality of life.
The U.S. healthcare system is very complex in structure hence it can be appraised with diverse perspectives. From one viewpoint it is described as the most unparalleled health care system in the world, what with the cutting-edge medical technology, the high quality human resources, and the constantly-modernized facilities that are symbolic of the system. This is in addition to the proliferation of innovations aimed at increasing life expectancy and enhancing the quality of life as well as diagnostic and treatment options. At the other extreme are the fair criticisms of the system as being fragmented, inefficient and costly. What are the problems with the U.S. healthcare system? These are the questions this opinion paper tries to propound.
American’s health-care system is in turmoil. According to Bradley and Taylor (2013), “we spend nearly twice what other industrialized countries spend on health-care” (para.2). See figure 1;
The NHS was founded on similar principles as Canada- universal, free to a point, equitable and paid by central funding (Grosios et al, 2010). Over the years, the NHS has seen numerous organizational and political changes, but still remains universal and offers care to people who need it and are not able to pay for it. The NHS is funded by national insurance contributions and taxes. The healthcare policy and healthcare delivery is a responsibility of the central government in England, whereas in Wales, Scotland and Northern Island it is the responsibility of the local governments. In the UK, the NHS is composed of two major sections- one which deals with policy, strategy and management and other section that deals with medical care; this department is further subdivided into community care, pharmacy, dentistry and general medical practice. In Britain there are many barriers in seeking specialty care; one has to see a general practitioner first, who is a gate keeper and decides on where and who gets specialty care. It can often take years to bypass this gatekeeper because there are very few specialists in the country. In the past two decades, there has been a major shift in funding moving away from central government to local counties. The UK healthcare center is facing cutbacks in funding and complaints of long waits to see surgeons and specialists is common.
In many other countries the health care is government controlled and all citizens are provided government assisted health care. Most systems over in Europe are indeed government controlled and are taxed my wages. The United States government does not pay for most of its citizens healthcare in contrast. If you are fournate enough to afford insurance it's usually through your employer. In comparssion almost all government operated insurances provide better care for babies and pregant mothers than the United States system of health care. The United States system are more flexible than government aided systems though.
The US health system has both considerable strengths and notable weaknesses. With a large and well-trained health workforce, access to a wide range of high-quality medical specialists as well as secondary and tertiary institutions, patient outcomes are among the best in the world. But the US also suffers from incomplete coverage of its population, and health expenditure levels per person far exceed all other countries. Poor measures on many objective and subjective indicators of quality and outcomes plague the US health care system. In addition, an unequal distribution of resources across the country and among different population groups results in poor access to care for many citizens. Efforts to provide comprehensive, national health insurance in the United States go back to the Great Depression, and nearly every president since Harry S. Truman has proposed some form of national health insurance.
The United States health care system is one of the most expensive systems in the world yet it is known as being unorganized and chaotic in comparison to other countries (Barton, 2010). This factor is attributed to numerous characteristics that define what the U.S. system is comprised of. Two of the major indications are imperfect market conditions and the demand for new technology (Barton, 2010). The health care system has been described as a free market in
The new theme for healthcare in the United States seems to be a push universal health care, just as other developed countries have because it is best for the people of a nation. So, what happens when the population of that nation is 4 times larger than another? Can we adequately compare or utilize that country as a model for universal health care systems when population sizes and dominant cultural characteristics are so different? The country of Brittan is part of the National Health Service (NHS) overseen by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
The National Health Service is split into four areas who each receive a different allocation of funding. The four areas are NHS England, NHS Wales, NHS Scotland and NHS Northern Ireland. Since 1999, there has been increasing policy divergence between the four health systems that make up the NHS. There are four major differences between the four NHS services: average waiting times, amenable mortality, life expectancy and nurse staffing levels. Average waiting times are significantly higher in Wales than England, while amenable mortality is 20% higher in Scotland than England (Bevan et al., 2014). Life expectancy is expected to be one year shorter in Scotland than England, while nurse staffing levels are lower in England than in the other three countries (Bevan et al.,
...care system would be difficult to implement in America with the complex methods of everything being a fee-for-service. We have many different systems in the United States. However with the new Obama care it is coming and making head way with similar qualities in those different countries.