The Benefits of Universal Healthcare Plan for the United States - Research Paper Example

The Benefits of Universal Healthcare Plan for the United s In the United s there are currently 50 million people without health insurance. And a large numbers of those who do have insurance are badly struggling to pay off their medical bills. Everyone agrees without a doubt that healthcare should be easily accessible for all, but that is where all agreements end. There is a huge debate on whether it would be wise to implement a Universal Healthcare System in the United States, and many people question whether it would be an appropriate remedy for America’s ailments. American Medical Women’s Association has come up with one of the better definitions of the term: “Access to health care should not be linked to a person's employment, place of residence, sex, age, marital status, or health status. Health care should be available to all persons on the basis of medical need rather than financial ability or employer contracts.” (Brown et al, 918-919) A universal system of health care is considered the most optimistic way out for the healthcare crisis in America. Under this system the government becomes responsible for repayment of almost all the services offered by the health practitioners in clinics and hospitals. It is believed that this system would give everyone a chance at health insurance and provide significant cost savings if related administrative expenses could be reduced. This end could be achieved by promoting preventive medicine. Also required would be universally available electronic medical records (Diamond, 921). On the other hand, many people are opposed to the idea of Universal Healthcare and consider it an impractical ideal that can’t be achieved. The biggest reason perhaps is that historically government bureaus have been known to become difficult and over-bearing rather consistently. It can also be argued that just because a person has access to preventive healthcare education, it doesn’t mean that they will adhere to its guiding principles; so there is a huge potential for costs going rampant. And lastly, the single-payer health system can put a huge toll on the quality of healthcare, something American will not be willing to put up with (Diamond, 921). Many people believe that despite all of its good intentions of “healthcare for all”, the current health reform movement is not the best method of achieving the desirable objective of universal health coverage as it is government controlled. History is witness that governments just aren’t prepared to do this job. It is argued that once the government gets the power to rule over the practice of medicine, it would signify the end of medical profession as known to mankind. Simply put, those against universal healthcare are afraid that it will bring a humiliating end to the best medical care in the world (Diamond, 922). It is commonly believed that health insurance cannot make healthcare more accessible in the United States. It cannot make people adhere to their recommended therapies, nor can it convince people to get to their doctor’s appointments on time. It can also be argued that medical problems are almost always a part of the bigger picture. A person’s health issues can be related to the conditions prevalent in the society. And universal healthcare may not be the solution at all if pregnant women remain ignorant of the advantages of prenatal care, and if asthma patients neglect to take their inhalers on time. It would indeed be better to educate and change people’s perception of health care and medical professionals. It would also be beneficial if the risk factors are weeded out of society so people can be healthier and more receptive to healthcare in case they do need it. We must stop people from smoking and educate them on the disadvantages of eating an unhealthy diet. The fact of the matter is that universal health coverage and medical advice will not have any effect no matter how strictly implemented. These measures would only work if the patients are willing to do their share of the work (Diamond, 922). Those against the single payer health insurance system also argue that it would lead to rationing of doctors’ time and services and long queues for doctor’s services. In fact, countries that have already implemented the single-payer insurance system are abounding with horror stories about people waiting for health services. Many people come to the United States for treatment as they would have to wait for as long as several years for their turn at the doctor’s in their own countries. The simple truth remains that making it on to a waiting list does not necessarily mean that a person has complete access to health care (Natarajan et al, 1234). As far as cost savings on administrative costs are concerned, the fact is that administrative expenditures of private and government insurance programs cannot be compared truthfully. For example, both of these insurance plans include expenses for collecting the premiums, but government-run insurances plans do not disclose this as an expense as a separate government agency is responsible for collecting them. Also, government programs do not have their profits taxed unlike private insurance plans. It should also be noted here that Medicare spends approximately double the amount on claims as compared to the insurers that operate privately and the expenditure is recorded as a percentage of claims that are paid. Consequently, Medicare comes out looking more economical than it actually is. It can simply be stated that the “Estimates of the bureaucratic cost savings under a single-payer system do not account for the expense of administering a greatly expanded Medicare-like program or the price of collecting new employer and individual taxes.” (Diamond,922) All the arguments stated above against President Obama’s universal health care are valid but I also believe that the Universal health care program could possibly be a step in the right direction if the president and his administrative staff plan it out carefully. It is important that the critics of the program only need to do a bit of research to bring to light statistics that show France, England and Canada have health care that ranks higher than that of the United States. This is according to information collected by the World Health Organization (Day, 921). Many countries have successfully implemented universal health care. Researching into their programs can successfully provide the American government with a blueprint that works and we will then simply have to make it better. Also, private insurance companies do not always necessarily provide health care reimbursements that can lead to healthier people. In fact, thirty-one percent of American health spending is wasted on bureaucracy. This rate of inefficiency is quite remarkable and can be faulted to the overheads of the health insurance industry. Insurance providers have to handle different insurers as well as health strategies and this is what brings out the inherent inefficiency. When we compare this figure to that of Canada’s, their expenditure on total system administration stands at a mere seventeen percent (Day, 921). Comprehensive insurance has become an elusive ideal for the individual as large increases in the amount of premium have made it impractical for employers to offer insurance to their employees. Same holds true for individuals looking to buy insurance. So, as opposed to comprehensive plans, people are now forced to take park in high-deductible, high co-pay plans that do not offer enough coverage and put the insured patients at risk on top of it. In a 2005 study, it was concluded that seventy-five percent of 750,000 American households are entering into bankruptcy every year because of illness or medical bills, despite the fact they had health insurance coverage on that occasion (Brown et al, 919). I wholeheartedly believe that the single-payer health care system is the most excellent way out for the adversities of the people who are not insured or underinsured. It has all the characteristics of a successful plan; it is simple, all–inclusive and it offers a wide range of services and still promises to preserve the current private delivery system; and most importantly, it is reasonably priced. State and federal agencies have carried out many feasibility studies that show that by cutting out the private insurance-related overheads and bargaining for better prices with drug companies, we can effectively offer lifetime health care coverage to all American citizens for a sum comparable to what is presently being paid for the coverage of only a small part of our population (Day, 921). Another important aspect of the new health plan is that it would be disconnected from employment status, so if a person lost or changed his job, he would still be able to have the same health coverage irrespective of age, gender or any previous pathologies or place of living. Funding for the plan is to come from two sources mainly; first, a payroll tax for employees that is about seven per cent of payroll and second, from a two per cent increase in income tax. Under this system, patients will have the freedom to opt for any medical doctor or health care center right through the country (Day, 920). Americans are increasingly favoring the new health care system. In a recent poll, 65% of American residents and 59% of American physicians agreed with this solution. A single-payer system would cover all the individuals, at a cost lower or equal to what we are presently spending, and it may get even more economical (Day, 920). Works Cited Brown, Lee K., Theodore W. Marcy, Dana Kissner, and Ivor Douglas. "Approaches to Achieving Universal Health Care in the United States: Where Should the American Thoracic Society Stand?"American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 180.10 (2009): 918-919. Print. Day, John A. "Pro: Single-Payer Health Care: Simple, Fair, and Affordable." American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 180.10 (2009): 920-921. Print. Diamond, Michael A. "Con: Single-Payer Health Care: Why It's Not the Best Answer." American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 180.10 (2009): 921-922. Print. Natarajan, Madhu K., Shamir R. Mehta, Douglas H. Holder, David R. Goodhart, Amiram Gafni, Donald Shilton, Rizwan Afzal, Koon Teo, and Salim Yusuf. "The Risks of Waiting for Cardiac Catheterization: a Prospective Study."CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal. 167.11 (2002): 1233-40. Print. Read More