Healthcare is a current problem, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. As Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted, “If it weren't for the steady beat of war drums [during the war in Iraq], health care would be front and center in [the] political debate . . . politicians will not be able to avoid it much longer.” (Angell 1) With the rising costs, less people are able to afford healthcare, which means more people are left unable to go to the doctor and uncared for. With this problem becoming more and more present, America would benefit from adopting a single-payer healthcare system. It would stabilize costs, give everyone the chance to receive equal treatment, and offer high quality care for everyone at an affordable price. …show more content…
The United states, which has a hybrid healthcare system, “spent $2566 per citizen on health care while Canada . . . spent only $1770 per citizen, less than 70 percent as much.” (DeGrazia 3) There are no co-pays, deductibles, or exclusions in a single-payer healthcare system, so the cost of healthcare would lower significantly. This would result in more people being able to get the care they need. In modern times, healthcare is based on a person’s job, but not all Americans are employed or have jobs that offer standard healthcare. The shrinking of healthcare coverage can be seen in the Census Bureau report from September 2002 that “ reported that nearly 1.5 million Americans lost their insurance.” (Angell 1) A universal healthcare system would offer all American citizens would receive equal treatment. People would be allowed to have an individual choice of the doctor or hospital that they want to go to, and they would be able to receive not matter their wealth or stance in the social
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.
People who are in favor of universal health care in the U.S. use the argument that the U.S. was built upon the basic ideals, the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that we all have the right to at least a minimum standard of living. To deny universal health care is to deny these basic ideals and rights to the people and therefore unconstitutional. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is also immoral. It is immoral to deny people health care, allowing them to suffer and even die, just because they cannot afford it and to force people to pay so much money that they go bankrupt for a basic right. In 2007 about 62% of all U.S. bankruptcies were related to medical expenses. If the U.S. had universal health care, medical bankruptcies would no longer be an issue (Top 10 Pros & Cons). Universal health care would also be beneficial to the economy. Businesses and employers would no longer have to pay for health insurance for their employees and the government wouldn’t waste as much per capita on health care as it does now without a universal health care system. It would also allow people to be more willing to take entrepreneurial risks because they won’t fear having to go without health insurance (Why The U.S.
On a global scale, the United States is a relatively wealthy country of advanced industrialization. Unfortunately, the healthcare system is among the costliest, spending close to 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) towards funding healthcare (2011). No universal healthcare coverage is currently available. United States healthcare is currently funded through private, federal, state, and local sources. Coverage is provided privately and through the government and military. Nearly 85% of the U.S. population is covered to some extent, leaving a population of close to 48 million without any type of health insurance. Cost is the primary reason for lack of insurance and individuals foregoing medical care and use of prescription medications.
The author includes that there would be no way to pay for the system and then lists logical reasons as of why paying for the health care system would fail. The author also includes that creating a universal health care system would cause unemployment to those who are employed in the insurance industry, appealing to his readers with pathos. Finally, the author argues that universal health care would dramatically decrease the quality of health care because more patients would be going in to see the small amount of doctors that are in the US, causing the system to get backed
There is an ongoing debate on the topic of how to fix the health care system in America. Some believe that there should be a Single Payer system that ensures all health care costs are covered by the government, and the people that want a Public Option system believe that there should be no government interference with paying for individual’s health care costs. In 1993, President Bill Clinton introduced the Health Security Act. Its goal was to provide universal health care for America. There was a lot of controversy throughout the nation whether this Act was going in the right direction, and in 1994, the Act died. Since then there have been multiple other attempts to fix the health care situation, but those attempts have not succeeded. The Affordable Care Act was passed in the senate on December 24, 2009, and passed in the house on March 21, 2010. President Obama signed it into law on March 23 (Obamacare Facts). This indeed was a step forward to end the debate about health care, and began to establish the middle ground for people in America. In order for America to stay on track to rebuild the health care system, we need to keep going in the same direction and expand our horizons by keeping and adding on to the Affordable Care Act so every citizen is content.
In conclusion, there still needs to be a lot of work done to health care in the United States. Other nations provide universal health care to their citizens, but this would cause dilemmas in balancing two often conflicting policy goals: providing the public with equitable access to needed pharmaceuticals while controlling the costs. Universal health care probably would not work in the U.S. because our nation is so diverse and our economy is so complex. The system we have now obviously has its problems, and there is a lot of rom for improvement. HMO’s will still create problems for people and their medical bills, but they definitely should be monitored to see that their patients are receiving just treatment.
Until Obama-care, The United States was one of the only developed nations that did not provide some sort of health care for its citizens. To most other nations that do provide healthcare, it is because it is considered a human right that all people should be entitled to. That hasn’t been the case in America, however, where only those who could afford it could have healthcare plans. Those who stand to gain the most from universal healthcare are the already mentioned 45 million americans who currently don’t have any form of healthcare. For many of these individuals, there are many obstacles that prevent them from gaining healthcare. 80% of the 45 million are working class citizens, but either their employer doesn’t offer insurance, or they do but the individual can n...
The U.S. expends far more on healthcare than any other country in the world, yet we get fewer benefits, less than ideal health outcomes, and a lot of dissatisfaction manifested by unequal access, the significant numbers of uninsured and underinsured Americans, uneven quality, and unconstrained wastes. The financing of healthcare is also complicated, as there is no single payer system and payment schemes vary across payors and providers.
Health Insurance is one of the nations top problems, the cost is rising for premiums, and many businesses just cannot afford it. As Americans many of us have the luxury of health insurance, but far too many of us have to go without it. This is something that always seems to brought up at congressional debates, but little is done about it. “In 2013 there were 41 million people reported with out health insurance coverage, this is too many considering those people probably were sick at some point through out the year, and they couldn’t afford treatment.” We need to find someway to make sure that every citizen of the United States is able to have affordable healthcare for themselves, and their families.
While in the short term supporting the free market policy could cost some individuals more money than with single-payer, however, over a long period of time the vast majority of individuals will end up paying less money for health care than they would have for single-payer once you include all of the tax hikes that will come with single-payer. Individuals who do not have significant health problems will be financially solid with the free market system, yet in a single-payer system they would be financially struggling because their tax rate would go up massively and they would have to pay for the health care of others when they are not of fault. While even those with a one time large medical expense, over time it will be financially beneficial
A universal healthcare system is a great idea in theory, but in actuality, no one has figured out a reasonable proposal for where the money should come from. Economists claim that more than 2 trillion dollars are spent on health care each year. That’s over $6,000 per person. It would be reasonable to assume that universal health care would cause the already grand cost of health care in the United States to increase even more. The most likely outcome is that taxpayers would have to pay into a large pool from which everyone would draw for their health needs. This would create several problems. First, it would raise taxes for everyone. It would also mean, fundamentally, that many people who choose a healthy lifestyle would be required to pay the same amount as people who choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, which hardly seems fair. Finally, a universal healthcare system could lead to huge increases in unemployment. All of the Americans who are currently employed with private insurance companies could suddenly find themselves without work. Government regulation could lead to decreased salaries for doctors. This hardly seems like a more
It will not just help lower the administrative cost but also the health care service cost. There is finite reason to adopt single reason but implementing this approach in California would be an extremely challenging endeavor. It will cause to bring change in so many levels from state to federal. There will be extreme increment in taxes to manage funds, as there would be no other way to fund the health care other than taxes. Insurance company would mostly likely kicked out from the picture. Federal government controls most of the health care spending in California. For example, as it is mentioned in the CHCF report approximately 27% of California health care expenditures are for the Medical and Healthy Families programs, which are both jointly funded via state (about 10%) and federal (about 17%) contributions. A substitute source of funds for the federal share for Medical and Healthy Families populations is unlikely to be readily available. Despite of these facts, adhering to the principles, a single-payer system still has chance of starting off on the right foot, but in order for this to happen Californians would need to decide to shift away from the state’s current multi-payer health care system to single payer
Universal health systems with single payers were introduced by several countries of the world after World War II and sought to guarantee that all individuals received needed care. While a system that provides universal care that does not leave citizens uninsured or underinsured is alluring, the realities are sometimes a stark contrast when cost is controlled at the expense of access to care. Furthermore, “single-payer systems do not have built-in incentives to control costs. The great equalizer - market competition - is not present” (Litow, 2007, p. 18) and therefore, universal health care systems cannot be considered the benchmark – or ‘gold standard’ – by which the success of other systems are measured. Further examining the experiences of countries with national health systems “s...
I agree with you, reading more and more about multi-payer systems, helps me have a clear understanding on why it is important in the U.S community. But I still believe that if the U.S have more preventive system, the cost would be lower due to early prevention or maintain their health. With using multi-payer system, I realized that the systems really help provide quality care. For instance, I use to work for a children hospital, and there were time when we had to transfer patients to other hospital like, Cleveland clinic and many more up scaled hospital that were able to provide better care for are patients, especially are patients with cancer. Even though it is an expensive lateral move, however, the quality of care is remarkable. Unfortunately,
While Universal Health Care is viewed as having a positive effect on the world and seems to do only good, it is a thorned rose, that will produce more negative, disastrous, and unforeseen outcomes than positive ones. Universal Health Care is a system in which the government provides financial aid and medical care to everyone within the nation. Canada, Denmark, Taiwan, and Sweden have single-payer systems in which every citizens medicare costs are covered for. Currently in the United States we have private insurance and health care, meaning that if citizens can afford it they pay for their own health care privately. There has been much debate over if the United States should adopt a single payer system or if we should continue on with the system