More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of universal health care 2017
Studies on universal health care
Pros and cons of universal healthcare in the US
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The strength of a nation relies on the strength of its health care system. A strong system will benefit all of society. It must be cost effective, not just for the government, but for the citizens as well. It must ensure the health of citizens is flourishing and thriving. Most of all, it must reflect the inherent values of society. When considering these factors, one system rises above the rest - universal health care. The truth of the matter is, Canada’s universal system is far more beneficial to society than the American system. It costs less, protects the health of citizens, and closely follows Canada’s moral guidelines. Even more, it allows all citizens access to needed health services. In comparison, one in five uninsured American adults …show more content…
will go without medical care due to the cost (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population) leading to a weaker, less happy general population. Unlike in the United States, Canadian confidence is well placed in a health system that benefits the whole population. Contrary to popular belief, universal health care actually allows for a reduction in government expenditure and lower costs per person. A major argument against universal health care is that it increases government expenses, resulting in higher taxes. However, the opposite is true. For instance, health costs only account for 18.5% of total government expenditure in Canada (NLiS Country Profile: Canada) but 20.7% of total government expenditure in the United States (NLiS Country Profile:United State of America). Furthermore, despite having universal coverage, Canada spends less per person for health care. In 2013, the Canadian government spent $4 759 (USD) per capita on health (NLiS Country Profile: Canada) while the United States government spent $9 146 (USD) per capita (NLiS Country Profile:United State of America). That is a fairly significant difference considering that in 2013, 41 million Americans had no health coverage (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population). Moreover, Emory economist Dr. Kenneth Thorpe published a report calculating the costs of instituting government health care (Chua). The scenario of creating a universal, publicly funded plan will actually save 1.1 trillion over 10 years (Chua). This is a huge amount of money and clearly offsets the estimated 34 billion per year that would be used by the uninsured if they had insurance (Chua). Clearly the costs of universal health care are not as great as many assume. Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt says it best, “The issue of universal coverage is not a matter of economics. Little more than 1% of GDP assigned to health could cover all. It is a matter of soul.” (Chua). However, the government benefits of health care also translate to the general population. The results of not having a government health care plan are increasingly costly to citizens. For one, the costs of health care place a huge financial burden on people. Medical bills for uninsured people often results in using up savings, difficulty paying for necessities, and borrowing money (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population). Moreover, one third of uninsured Americans are unable to fill a prescription drug because of the cost (Chua). In addition, the costs for the insured to continue coverage are very high. 46% of uninsured adults say that the reason they do not have coverage is because it is too expensive (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population). Despite already being expensive, health insurance is becoming even more expensive for those already insured (Chua). Health insurance premiums are rising by a rate that is 2-3 times the rate of inflation (Chua). These rising expenses not only place a burden on the people who pay for them, but also can cut into the profits of employers who offer these benefits (Chua). Even General Motors reports that every car it makes is $1,500 more expensive because of health care expenses (Chua). Clearly the cost of health care places a financial strain in areas besides the personal cost of health insurance. Universal health care however, can negate many of these costs by reducing what insurance companies must pay for, and therefore reducing the price of health insurance premiums. AMSA Jack Rutledge Fellow Kao-Ping Chua explains the struggle of uninsured Americans, saying, “The suffering caused by uninsurance goes far beyond the purely physical suffering experienced by uninsured individuals… the patients who are forced to decide between pills and food” (Chua). Overall, a publicly funded plan is far more economically beneficial to the general population. Unhindered access to health services prevents sickness and death among all citizens, not just the wealthy. Naturally, without access to health care services, the health of citizens suffers. To illustrate, one in five uninsured American adults have gone without care in the past year (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population). However, as Commissioner Roy J Romanow Q.C. explains, “[Canadians] get the care they need when they need it. Their health problems are diagnosed and treated. They get well quickly…” (Romanow 32) Knowing this, it makes sense that people without health coverage are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems and have higher mortality rates (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population). Furthermore, one can analyze the more general health of Canadian and American populations. Overall Canadians are much healthier and less susceptible to disease. For example, the probability of a male dying before age seventy in Canada is 29% (Canada: WHO Statistical Profile), while in the United States the probability is 38% (United States of America: WHO Statistical Profile). That is a difference of almost 10% between two countries well developed countries in the same part of the world. Furthermore, the mortality ratio (per 100 000 live births) in Canada is only eleven (Canada: WHO Statistical Profile) whereas in the United States the maternal mortality ratio is twenty eight (United States of America: WHO Statistical Profile). The World Health Organization defines maternal mortality as the death of a woman while pregnant due to the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes (WHO | Maternal Mortality Ratio (per 100 000 Live Births). Americans are more likely to die and are also less protected from preventable disease. For example, 95% of 1 year olds in Canada are vaccinated for measles (Canada: WHO Statistical Profile). However, only 91% of 1 year olds in the US are vaccinated for measles (United States of America: WHO Statistical Profile). This is in fact lower than for the region to which the US belongs; the region including all of North America and South America (United States of America: WHO Statistical Profile). Evidently, the fact that many in the US have limited or no health coverage (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population) results in a sicker general populace. Universal health care reflects the values of all Canadians, and Americans, but only the former country’s beliefs are realized in the health system.
For instance, Canadian values align with the concept that health care is a basic human right. Commissioner Roy J. Romanow, Q.C. states “Almost all Canadians I have heard from to date want to ensure that the poorest in our society have access to health care” (Romanow 9). Canadians do not want to change the current system because it truly represents their societal attitudes (Soroka). To illustrate, 85% of Canadians believe eliminating public health care represents a “fundamental change to the nature of Canada” (Soroka). Undoubtedly, Canadians trust in the system that they have. It is difficult to say otherwise when Canadians view Medicare as a defining feature of the Canadian identity (Romanow 3). However, the health system in the US is not as strongly tied to the principles of Americans. Rather, universal health care better complements the culture in America than the current system (Chua). A quote by the Institute of Medicine embodies this argument, saying that “Extending the social benefit of health insurance would help us make our implicit and explicit democratic political commitments of equal opportunity and mutual concern and respect more meaningful and concrete.” (Chua). For one, the United States often claims to be a land of equal opportunity, but those without health insurance are disadvantaged in society (Chua). Lack of health coverage leaves people at risk of intense financial strain. For example, medical debts contribute to almost half of all bankruptcies in the United States (Key Facts About the Uninsured Population). In addition, as previously discussed, the uninsured are much weaker in health. People without health coverage are up to 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed late for cancer (Chua). It is not impossible to see how these factors cause one to have difficulty with simply contributing to society,
much less having equal opportunities to those who have health insurance. Furthermore, the “inalienable rights” granted by the Declaration of Independence include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Chua). If people who are uninsured have an increased mortality rate by 25%, how can one say that the American health systems emulates the ideals ingrained into the very constitution of the United States (Chua)? Yet, by far, the value that most defines the United States is the vision of the American Dream. In a 2005 study, the highest scored response to a question about the main threat to the American dream is that health insurance is too expensive (Chua). This clearly portrays how Americans feel about the cost of private health care. Overall, unlike the United States, Canada’s health care system truly reflects and benefits the values of its citizens. Universal health care is the ideal choice in consideration to the benefit to residents. Overall, Canadians are far healthier than their American counterparts. As shown, Americans are less likely to seek medical care and thus have higher mortality rates than Canadians. Furthermore, both the Canadian Government and Canadian citizens pay less for their health care. It has been shown that implementing a universal, publicly funded health care plan may actually reduce costs to the United States Government. Naturally, universal health care also reduces the financial burden on not just those who do not have insurance, but those who pay increasingly expensive health premiums. Most importantly though, a universal health plan most accurately reflects the values instilled in both Americans and Canadians. However, only Canadians are able to prosper from a plan that respects their culture. Altogether, a health care system that benefits all citizens is essential to the strength and longevity of a powerful nation.
Though, Professor Armstrong makes very good connections between health care policy reforms and its impact on women, all of these connections are eclipsed by the values encompassed within the Canada Health Act of 1984. Health care to this day is provided on the basis of need rather than financial means, and is accessible to all that require it. Professor Armstrong’s argument is hinged upon the scope of services provided under the public health insurance system, and the subsequent affect of these reforms on women as the main beneficiaries of these services and as workers in these industries. However, these reforms were made to balance the economy, and the downsizing and cutbacks were necessary steps to be taken with respect to this agenda. Moreover, as aforementioned the access to medical services ultimately comes down to need, and the reforms to date are not conducive to an intentional subordination of female interests in the realm of health care. Therefore, I find Professor Armstrong’s critique on Canada’s public health insurance system to be relatively redundant because the universal access to care encompassed within the Canada Health Act transcends the conditional proponents of her arguments of inequality. In other words, I believe she is
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.
It is an assumption by many that Canada has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. But do they really? There are numerous health services in Canada which should be part of the universal care nonetheless are not. These include but are not limited to: dental care, vision care, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and prescription drug coverage. This report will solely focus on why basic dental care should be a part of the Canadian universal healthcare. Dental care is predominantly delivered in the private sector on a fee-for-service basis, with approximately 62.6% of Canadians paying for care through employment-based insurance and 31.9% through out-of-pocket expenditures and only a small amount of the Canadians, 5.5%, are qualified for public funding through government assistance programmes (Ramraj and Quinonez, 2012). It was seen that by 2009, dental coverage affordability became a problem not just for the low income families but also impacted middle-income earners as a result of their lack of, or decreased access to comprehensive dental insurance (Ramraj, 2013). It is stated by the World Health Organization that universal health care coverage should reassure access to necessary care and protect patients from financial hardship, and that the governments are obligated to
At the beginning of the 20th century healthcare was a necessity in Canada, but it was not easy to afford. When Medicare was introduced, Canadians were thrilled to know that their tax dollars were going to benefit them in the future. The introduction of Medicare made it easier for Canadians to afford healthcare. Medicare helped define Canada as an equal country, with equal rights, services and respect for every Canadian citizen. Medicare helped less wealthy Canadians afford proper healthcare. Canadian citizens who had suffered from illness because they could not afford healthcare, were able to get proper treatment. The hospitals of Canada were no longer compared by their patients’ wealth, but by their amount of service and commitment. Many doctors tried to stop the Medicare act, but the government and citizens outvoted them and the act was passed. The doctors were then forced to treat patients in order of illness and not by the amount of money they had. Medicare’s powerful impact on Canadian society was recognized globally and put into effect in other nations all around the world. Equality then became a definition which every Canadian citizen understood.
A Canadian Dermatologist who once worked in the United States breaks down the pros and cons of Canada’s health care system and explains why he thinks the Canadian system is superior to America’s. Canada runs a single payer health care system, which means that health care is controlled by the government rather than private insurance companies. One of the main pros of the Canadian health care system is that everyone is insured. He says that in the province of Ontario, the Ministry of Health insures all of its citizens, all important health needs such as physician visits, home nursing and physical therapy are covered. Since every resident is covered under the government plan the problem of patients being turned away due to lacking medical coverage
LaPierre, T. A. (2012). Comparing the Canadian and US Systems of Health Care in an Era of Health Care Reform. Journal of Health Care Finance, 38(4), 1-18.
Being a Canadian citizen, it is hard for me to think of life without any health insurance. I have had public health insurance all my life growing up and have been free to go to any hospital at any time and get some form of health care. Residing in the United States off and for the last 7 years I have experienced health care from both sides. I feel that private health care has huge advantages over public health care. In the following essay I will explain in three points why I feel strongly about private health care as opposed to public. What is better is always subjective, and I will not try to argue the point of health for all, but instead for the individual who is seeking the best health care possible, and is willing to put the resources into obtaining that. I will be addressing efficiency and quality, not inclusion of everyone (free health care), I will be addressing the root of this and not just that one argument, which would detract from my focus. I will not be getting into the political debate of socialism vs. capitalism, as that is a separate argument in itself, and this country is currently running under capitalism. Again coming from living in both a socialist and then a capitalist society, I feel I can do so in an unbiased manner.
Access to healthcare provides financial stability by assuring people that they will not be financially destroyed by injury or illness. Additionally, when people can afford regular medical care they tend to avoid chronic problems and financial stress. In a study provided by the American Medical Students Association, researchers reviewed the costs and benefits of universal health care. They came to the conclusion, after reviewing other articles and statistics from multiple sources, that, “The annual cost of diminished health and shorter life spans of Americans without insurance is $65-$130 billion.” (Chua 5) This comes from people not having adequate health care and then losing their jobs because they...
Canada’s health care system is one of the top in the world; due to the federal legislation for publicly funded health care insurance. Requiring provinces and territories to follow certain conditions and guidelines to maintain universal health care, which is known as the Canada Health Act passed in 1984. There are five main principles within the Canada Health Act; public administrations, comprehensiveness, universality, accessibility, and portability. Moreover there are three aspects within the principles, equity, access and undeserved. Several marginalized populations do not receive the adequate health care even though the Canada Health Act is in place to help “protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of
Healthcare professionals want only to provide the best care and comfort for their patients. In today’s world, advances in healthcare and medicine have made their task of doing so much easier, allowing previously lethal diseases to be diagnosed and treated with proficiency and speed. A majority of people in the United States have health insurance and enjoy the luxury of convenient, easy to access health care services, with annual checkups, preventative care, and their own personal doctor ready to diagnose and provide treatment for even the most trivial of symptoms. Many of these people could not imagine living a day without the assurance that, when needed, medical care would not be available to themselves and their loved ones. However, millions of American citizens currently live under these unimaginable conditions, going day to day without the security of frequent checkups, prescription medicine, or preventative medicines that could prevent future complications in their health. Now with the rising unemployment rates due to the current global recession, even more Americans are becoming uninsured, and the flaws in the United States’ current healthcare system are being exposed. In order to amend these flaws, some are looking to make small changes to fix the current healthcare system, while others look to make sweeping changes and remodel the system completely, favoring a more socialized, universal type of healthcare system. Although it is certain that change is needed, universal healthcare is not the miracle cure that will solve the systems current ailments. Universal healthcare should not be allowed to take form in America as it is a menace to the capitalist principle of a free market, threatens to put a stranglehold on for-...
The Canadian Alliance Party’s plan is to make several policy developments to benefit Canada’s health care. They believe it will serve the security and well-being of all Canadians. The last party involved in this issue is the NDP Party who indicate that they are fighting hard for a better health care system in our economy. The NDP Party states that the income of a family should not dictate the quality of health care. Canada’s health care system is gradually growing to be a major concern in today’s society, providing Canadians with the standard of care they deserve.
Canada and the United States are countries that are known to share some similar attributes, but the question people often ask is why they each possess a different path to health reforms. A universal healthcare system funded by the government in Canada, and a dual-tried system of medicare and medicaid targeted at the poor and elderly in the United States. This essay, will talk about key points from the article “Parting at the crossroad”, why I think the author Maioni is convincing in making her case, and also some Important “take home” messages that I came across from reading and analyzing the article.
Martins (2008), concludes that “universal health care is extremely important to all” (p.429). But, a study conducted in Canada, on the accessibility of health care in a universal health care system, found that “20% participants had an Ontario health insurance number but were not in possession of their health insurance card… which almost all health providers require to be presented at each visit” (Hwang et al., 2010, p.1455). This shows that it is not a fact of inaccessibility but it shows that the health care systems are not being advertised as they should be. Only 40% of veterans were found to have insurance (O’Toole et al., 2007, p.447). But the study also showed that 90% of the vets were eligible for coverage.
In recent years, the number of Americans who are uninsured has reached over 45 million citizens, with millions more who only have the very basic of insurance, effectively under insured. With the growing budget cuts to medicaid and the decreasing amount of employers cutting back on their health insurance options, more and more americans are put into positions with poor health care or no access to it at all. At the heart of the issue stems two roots, one concerning the morality of universal health care and the other concerning the economic effects. Many believe that health care reform at a national level is impossible or impractical, and so for too long now our citizens have stood by as our flawed health-care system has transformed into an unfixable mess. The good that universal healthcare would bring to our nation far outweighs the bad, however, so, sooner rather than later, it is important for us to strive towards a society where all people have access to healthcare.
Health insurance facilitates entry into the health care system. Uninsured people are less likely to receive medical care and more likely to have poor health. Many Americans are foregoing medical care because they cannot afford it, or are struggling to pay their medical bills. “Adults in the US are more likely to go without health care due to cost” (Schoen, Osborn, Squires, Doty, & Pierson, 2010) Many of the currently uninsured or underinsured are forced accept inferior plans with large out-of-pocket costs, or are not be able to afford coverage offered by private health insurers. This lack of adequate coverage makes it difficult for people to get the health care they need and can have a particularly serious impact on a person's health and stability.