Social Security, Healthcare, Commodity Taxation, and Income Taxation - Essay Example

Economics Health Costs in the United s Every government is concerned with its economic spending as one way of balancing between provisions of efficient social welfare in the society and proper utilization of its resources. In the US, the government spending on health is a matter raising concern among the public and other financial analysts. Clearly, the government’s spending on public health has increased considerably in the last 20 years and in comparison with other countries, it is clear that US spends the largest percentage of its budget on health care. Economic analyses show that the rate of increase in US spending on health care is much higher than the economic growth rate in this country. While there are those who interprete that this is a manifestation of the US commitment to provision of quality health care, there are those who feel that poor economic utilization is the reason for such a trend. The focus of this essay is to evaluate whether the US economic spending on health shows efficient utilization of the government resources. The US health spending per capita is one of the highest in the world. A close analysis of the economic spending per capita in 2008 among fifteen OECD countries shows that the US per capita spending was the highest. At the times of the statistics collection, the US was spending over $7, 538 per capita, which was double the average spending for the 15 surveyed countries. This figure was more than 51% the per capita spending of Norway, the second highest spender in the 10 surveyed countries. This shows that US per capita expenditure is much more than that in many countries. Another interesting aspect of economic spending is the rapid rise in the health expenditure in the US. The economic expenditure of health increased from 7.1% to 16.0% between 1970 and 2008. This shows that the expenditure has increased by about 9% while the expenditure in other countries has increased by only about 5%. Both the private and public expenditure on health in the US have risen considerably as compared to other countries (Kaiser Family Foundation Para. 1-8). However, it is clear that the economic growth rate in US remains equal to that in other countries. The rise in the economic health spending in the US is an issue that has raised a lot of concern among economic analysts. Some analysts associate this kind of economic spending with the government’s efforts to improve quality and quantity of healthcare within US. McCue and Hall (1) associate the increase in government spending to the establishment of the affordable care act, which was a government strategy to ensure that the medical care is accessible to everyone in the country. However, in the recent past, the affordable care act has reacted strongly against the continued rise in the cost of health insurance policies, which are making health an affordable social amenity in the society. This shows that there is need to reevaluate whether the government’s efforts to improve healthcare in the country through higher budgetary spending has had a significant impact. The government health policies in a country determine the efficiency of the healthcare system. In the United States, the government provides an integrated approach to medical care insurance. A combination of private and public insurance policies are available for the public and the have a liberal choice to select one or several that best suit their needs. In the UK, the National Hospital service programme provides the public with a free medical healthcare system that guarantees every patient the right to free health services. The US government budget allocation to healthcare is greater than that of UK by 8% (Kaiser Family Foundation Para. 5). On this note, it is expected that the US should be able to provide free services like the US has managed to do. In Canada, the government instituted the Canada Health Act that demanded that all health services be government funded. In terms of funds allocation, the US government spends a greater proportion of its income that either Canada or UK. In UK and US, healthcare is taxpayer funded and the policies strive to ensure that the rich take care of the expenses of the poor. The expectation of the public is that high budgetary allocation should be depicted by better social welfare for the people. Owing from the different health structures in UK, US and Canada, there is a great variation in the outcome of the health systems. The US government funds the Medicare insurance with part of its budget in a commitment to provide affordable care for all the minority groups in the country. The Medicare facility seems to take care of the special needs of the population in the society. The eligibility criterion is strictly defined and allows only those who are defined as old and disabled in the US society. The Medicaid insurance is partially state and federally funded, and this gives the federal government the right to define the eligibility criteria (Musgrave 20). The citizens have the liberty to choose an insurance policy that satisfies their health but have to fund the services. Given that there is minimal government intervention, the private insurance policies are expensive making it hard for the citizens to afford. As such, many citizens who are economically disadvantaged find it almost impossible to afford these insurance policies. This has limited accessibility to healthcare services in the US as most people find it hard to pay for modest insurance policies. In comparison, the UK government provides the people with a government funded insurance policy that provide each and every citizen with the right to access the social health. The health system structure allows every citizen to access healthcare not on the basis of their affordability but on the basis of citizenship. The National Hospital service is government funded and all citizens are eligible. However, the people have the right to access private hospitals, another alternative of healthcare, but in this case they have to meet their health expenses. The fact that the private health providers are expensive makes most citizens to prefer the NHS health program creating congestion in the public facilities. In this light, those who can afford find their way to the private hospitals to accord long queue evident in public health facilities. In other countries such as Canada, the health system is government funded and serves more like the US system (Musgrave 38). Unlike US and UK, the Canada health system is more extensive and there adequate facilities to take of the public needs without there being any congestion. From this point of view, it is clear that despite heavy government spending, the US healthy systems still suffers from inefficiency. National Health Indicators help to analyse the performance of health systems in different countries. In Canada, most people are able to acquire insurance coverage for other benefits that are not enforceable in the government Medicare policy. Statistics indicate that over 65% of the citizens are able to purchase the private insurance coverage. This is due to the fact that all other needs are taken care by the government and this makes these policies affordable. On the other hand, in US, the private insurance policies take care of 56% of the population. This low coverage is associated with the high costs charged by the private service providers. This indicates that most of the citizens in the US cannot afford medical services. In Canada, only 2% of the citizen population are registered in other insurance programs and private insurance policies are preferred for surgery and other serious diseases. Canada health system is rated as the best in the world while UK and the US follow in that order (Gillies 132: Ham 597). This analysis shows that the US health system lags behind compared to countries such as Canada and UK, where people have better access to health care. Another way to look at the performance of health policies within a country is to evaluate the citizen satisfaction. The citizens in any given country are satisfied if they have access to modest health care, they can afford it and they receive quality services in the hospitals. Research shows that 87% of the Canadian population are satisfied with the health services they receive. In UK, 70 per cent consider the NHS systems as superior and feel that it is remains their favourite policy. In US, over 30% of the citizen population testify that the medical insurance policies are beyond their means and majority of them cannot afford them. As such, over 45% of the US citizens have opted to stay without the coverage of private policies (Glennerster & Lieberman 11). These statistics point out that the Canada health system is the most satisfying followed by the UK system, with US system being the last in the list. From this kind of scenario, it is possible to judge the health expenditure as inefficient in the US. It is expected that the economic spending should be reflected by a high percentage of customer satisfaction. The health budget in the US should be used to provide affordable and accessible high quality services that satisfy the public needs. UK is one of the countries that have strived to reform their health system in the recent past. In 2013, the UK government allowed private practitioners to provide health services as long as they meet the standard by the NHS program. This aims at increasing the accessibility to health care on behalf of the citizens. The US government has remained static and always defended their health care system without considering reform. Although Barack Obama has proposed several amendments, the changes are still to take place and the government refuses to adopt the NHS facility that has proved superior in the UK. The Canadian health system has evolved and seems to be satisfactory so far (European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies 32). From this point of view, it is clear that the heavy economic spending on health in the US has not led to important reforms in the health sector. The increase in budget allocation has only helped to counter the simultaneous rise in the health insurance costs. As a result the government has not successfully improved the health care to meet the standards of other countries such as the UK. It would be recommendable for the US government to reform its health system by changing the insurance policy schemes to ensure efficient utilization of the government resources. In conclusion, the US high economic spending on health is a sign of inefficiency in government operations. Despite the governments to strengthen its health system through heavy budget allocation, it seems that the health index and public satisfaction are still very low compared to other countries that spend less that US on health system. While the affordable health act defined the quality and quantity of health care as a factor of the government’s spending on health, it is clear that the prices of medical services have gone higher. Many people in US cannot afford the increasing costs of insurance policies in the US. Majority have decided to live without any insurance coverage since they cannot afford it. From this observation, it is clear that there is the need for the government to focus on operational strategies to streamline its health polices, rather than focus on high economic spending. It is possible for the government to reduce its spending on health care by using effective strategies such as providing free medical insurance to the whole public like other countries have done. It would also be crucial to regulate the insurance providers who have put their costs too high, making it hard for the public to afford. This way, the government can reduce its spending and match it with the economic growth of the country, without sacrificing the efficiency of the health systems. Works Cited European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Health Systems in transition: Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 2013. Print Glennerster, Hue and Lieberman, Richard. (2011). Hidden Convergence: Toward a Historical Comparison of U.S. and U.K. Health Policy. Journal Of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 36(1), 5-31. doi:10.1215/03616878-1191090 Gillies, Mark. What makes a good healthcare system: Comparisons, values, drivers. Abingdon, U.K: Radcliffe Medical Press. 2009. Print Ham, Clain Money Can’t Buy Satisfaction. British Medical Journal, 330(7491), 597- 599, 2011. Kaiser Family Foundation. Snapshots: Healthcare Spending in the United States and Selected OECD Countries. 2011. Accessed from:< http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/>[Accessed on 28th April, 2014] McCue, Michael and Hall, Mark. Whats Behind Health Insurance Rate Increases?, The Commonwealth Fund, December 2013.  Musgrave, Francis The economics of U.S. health care policy: The role of market Forces. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. 2011. Print. Read More