Universal Healthcare Versus Private Healthcare - Assignment Example

Universal Healthcare versus Private Healthcare 1. Primary concerns raised by advocates of the reform As at 2007, the USA had more than forty five million people without health insurance because of the costs that came with being uninsured by the private insurance industry. Ideally, the USA stands alone in a pack of industrialized nations globally because it does not have a universal health care system. With this, the debate as to whether the USA should change to the universal health care system has gained momentum over the years as this healthcare insurance structure requires that the government helps its population. In essence, private health care insurance providers have enjoyed the monopoly of providing these services to the US population by making them affordable to a few (PNHP 2010). Ideally, access to quality health is not a privilege, but rather it is a necessity to all humanity, as per the human rights principles applied across the globe. Using this as the basis, the USA should adopt the universal health care system that is controllable of the government to replace the private one as this will be cost effective, able to eliminate operational inefficiencies, create a centralized health care system that will be able to focus on treating patients rather than the cost elements as presented by health care insurance. 2. Why the number of Uninsured Americans is high The percentage of uninsured people in America continue to rise by the day because of the continued plunge of the economy that has made many to struggle with making ends meet making it hard for them to have health care insurance. According to Galewitz and Villegas (2010), the percentage of those affected by the global recession that hit America included many losing their employment status, making them to lose out on insurance coverage as provided for by their employers or by paying privately. The implication of this was that a majority of those that made the increase of the uninsured to be high were the ones that lost their employment due to the global recession because most of them went from full time to part time employment or lost it all together hence losing out on the employer-funded insurance. Therefore, the application of the universal health care system would be a avail approach as this would cover this fraction of the population that finds itself in medical debt because they are not able to fully fund their health care costs. With this, the USA should adopt the universal health care system that is controllable of the government to replace the private one as this will be cost effective, able to eliminate operational inefficiencies, and create a centralized health care system. 3. Medicaid/Medicare and private insurance According to Mathews (2012), the Medicaid and the Medicare health programs operated by the government have not succeeded in meeting the insurance needs of the US population comprehensively hence making advocates to call for the adoption of the universal health care system. Ideally, the Medicaid program is a state operated medical services that is applicable to families with minimal income and those that have minimal access to resources. On the other hand, Medicare is also a federal health insurance system that only covers the elderly and a certain fraction of the disabled population making it to only be helpful to a few. With this, advocates of the adoption of the universal health care system have been vocal about this debate because these two programs do not benefit the population in entirety. The implication of this is that the USA should adopt the universal health care system that is controllable of the government to replace Medicaid and Medicare because these two only help a fraction of the population while the universal plan covers a wider demographic. On the contrary, private insurance has also been ineffective in covering the uninsured population because of the cost implications attachment to the covers that they provide making many of the employed population not to view healthcare insurance as a necessity. The coverage of private insurance also tends to be selective in that it may not cover an individual entirely or those that they may have terminal illnesses, making it to be ineffective in the delivery of quality health care insurance systems. With the entry of universal healthcare systems, the uninsured population that has shunned private insurance cover would benefit because the government will be able to control the health care costs while eliminating the inefficiencies that exist in private health insurance. 4. Healthcare in the U.S. has been increasing unaffordable for businesses and individuals With the ever increasing costs of health care insurance, individuals and business continue to view this necessity as unaffordable for average income earners or the unemployed fraction of the population. By 2011, the average health insurance costs for a family had risen to $15, 000 annually, which was exceedingly high. The cost implications have also been visible on business enterprises as many have cited the high insurance cost of premium of their employees to be high, hence opting not to offer any form of cover for them. The cost has also been high for the government as 17.9% of the economy goes into health care, which is not good for a strong economy such as that of the USA. The implication of this is that the introduction and application of the universal health care system in the USA would help in curbing the cost implications attracted by insurance as much as this would mean that taxes would go up. 5. Universal health care insurance helps eliminate wasteful inefficiencies Presently, the health insurance system that exists in the USA has failed to meet the need of the population, hence influencing the advocates of the introduction of universal health care coverage to gain ground. Essentially, the existing health care system has proved to be inefficient and bureaucratic because of the lack of competition that would make it better for the US population. Most patients tend to focus more on the billing aspects rather than them getting better because treatment attracts high billings in terms of medication and consult. Ideally, universal health care insurance seeks to reduce wasteful spending while upholding the standards of health care that the population should receive through this program (Lallemand 2012). Some of the inefficiencies that this program seeks to address include the occurrence of preventable infections in health facilities, he costs that may result from avoidable injuries, fraud and abuse of office. Critics have suggested that Medicaid and Medicaid have for a long time promoted wasteful inefficiencies that have also spread to private insurance and self-sponsored medical programs. One of the principle advantages presented by this program is the inclusion of the Electronics form of submitting claims, which reduces wasteful inefficiencies arising from duplication of paperwork and claims that has been dominant in the existing health care insurance programs. Therefore, the universal program would reduce healthcare inefficiencies in wasteful spending on preventable injuries, meaning that it advocate for safety and the application of commendable practices to the advantage of the patient. Universal health care insurance can help in the establishment of a national database that would make diagnosis and treatment of patients easier for doctors. The universal form of health care provides cover for all citizens or it can also be form of social health protection because it seeks to give financial protection to an entire population. By using a centralized database, treatment would be easier for doctors because they would be able to access the history of the patients without having to get this information from them in the event that they may be unconscious and unable to provide such information. This makes the treatment process to be seamless because correct information and analysis of data about a patient would be at their disposal making the doctors to make treatment plans that would be effective on their patients. In essence, doctors are also able to provide effective treatment and accurate diagnosis aimed at making patients better rather than on how the cost of the same will be met through the free universal health care program provided by the government, hence influencing the need for its adoption. On the other hand, medical malpractice tends to attract liabilities, which tend to inhibit patients’ access to health care because of the risk involved in certain procedures. As per this system, doctors should also not be faulted in the event that they make medical mistakes, but rather they can be able to apologize and allowed to continue with their practice making them to feel comfortable while executing their duties as compared to working in the worry of attracting malpractice liability (Pho, 2011). In this case, the national healthcare system seeks to make patients and doctors to be on the same side rather than them being adversaries with the aim of improving the quality of health care provided which is the concept used in Sweden and New Zealand. Presently, the current health insurance systems tend to have a negative effect on both the employers and their employees because these two parties find themselves grappling with the cost implications rather than on improving with work efficiencies. Employers have to make adjustments to the deductions that they ought to do for their employees because health insurance companies keep on changing the premium rates depending on the economic state. In many cases, the deductions attract minimal benefit to employees because this makes them to struggle even more as they pay packets tend to remain relatively the same (Stanton, 2004). Seemingly, employers also cannot afford to offer wage increment for their employees because this would mean that they operate at losses in order for them to retain employee loyalty. In other cases, employers opt to take up health care insurance that is not comprehensive and is cheaper, which may influence employees to cheap into their pockets in order for them to foot the medical bills in entirety. By introducing a national health care insurance policy, the government would be able to mitigate such situations that would allow employees to focus on getting better than on the cost of treatment. This would also come as a relief to employers as this is likely to allow them to focus on making the work environment for their employees better while making them to increase their output and productivity levels. The implication of this is that the negative effect would experience a turn around because the employee population and the employers alike would feel reprieved because they would concentrate on other aspects of building the economy rather than the cost implications involved in accessing health care through insurance. Other than having a negative impact on employees and their employers, the existing health care system also affects the society in the same way because it makes the cost of living to be high and influences the degeneration of the health statuses of the already sick. The refusal to adopting the national health care system would mean that seeking treatment in America would continue to be expensive because the sick would opt to stay that way rather than attract high debts because of seeking the same. The fact that the uninsured population is not aware of is that it becomes for them to access healthcare by funding it from their pockets, meaning that health debts would continue to be high and unsustainable (Stanton, 2004). Taxpayers would also continue to shoulder the burden of the uninsured population because they are likely to influence the poor performance of the economy and would channel their finances in accessing treatment rather than in making investments. Conclusion The adoption of the national health care system will be timely because it would help cove the fraction of the population that moved from being employed on a full time basis to a part time basis because they view health insurance as a luxury. Further, the adoption of universal system should replace the private and health care systems that have dominated the US health insurance market because it will be able to control costs of access while eliminating the inefficiencies of the same. In the end, America would be able to make quality health care insurance accessible to all its citizens, which is a core competency of the national health care system irrespective of their employment status, age, gender or physical state that will make healthcare in the USA to be effective. References Galewitz, P and Villegas, A (2010). Uninsured Rate Soars, 50+ Million Americans Without Coverage, Kaiser Health News. Retrieved on 22 April 2014 from http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/september/16/census-uninsured-rate-soars.aspx Lallemand, C, F, (2012), Reducing Waste in Heath Care, Health Affairs. Retrieved on 22 April 2014 from https://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=82 Matthews, M, (2012), Medicare and Medicaid Fraud is Costing Taxpayers Billions, Forbes. Retrieved on 22 April 2014 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/05/31/medicare-and-medicaid-fraud-is-costing-taxpayers-billions/ Pho, K, (2011), A medical malpractice system that reduces errors and improves quality. Retrieved on 22 April 2014 from http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/04/medical-malpractice-system-reduces-errors-improves-quality.html PNHP (Physicians for A National Health Program) (2010), A National Health Program fr the United States: A Physician’s Proposal. Retrieved on 22 April 2014 from http://www.pnhp.org/publications/a_national_health_program_for_the_united_states.php?page=all Stanton, M, W (2004), Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Trends in Cost and Access, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved on 22 April 2014 from http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/empspria/ Read More