In this paper, I’ll explore the reasons why America should adopt a universal healthcare system and identify the benefits and drawbacks of doing so. My stance is based on these major issues: people’s interests and experiences, a variety of organizations’ viewpoints, political context, affordability, and comparisons. The reader should have a thorough grasp on why we need to implement a universal healthcare plan in America after considering these points.
The United States healthcare system is unlike any other since the federal government has never offered all Americans universal coverage. “Among the world’s 29 industrialized nations, only the US does not have a form of general healthcare coverage for its citizens,” according to the World Health Organization (qt. in Scott 53: 32). We employ a method called “managed care” where some people have private insurance and may select their preferred physician. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that not enough individuals can afford coverage.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $12
The majority of those affected by this problem are people who fall in or above the lower-middle-class bracket. Americans with low incomes but no health insurance suffer as a result of this problem. Citizens with insurance are negatively impacted since they must pay excess hospital expenses to compensate for those without coverage.
According to a CQ HealthBeat report, hospitals operate at about 114 percent of costs, so the excess might be used to compensate those who cannot afford health care. (10) The federal government offers essential medical coverage through Medicaid to certain individuals who are extremely low-income. Medicare benefits are also provided to everyone over 65 years old who is eligible for Social Security benefits.
Medical costs are becoming too expensive. Have you ever battled with your insurance company over whether or not they would pay for treatment because they refused to pay for it? I know a woman whose name I will conceal who is going through the same difficulties that many people face when dealing with insurance; Nancy’s (name changed for privacy) story is an excellent illustration of how our healthcare system isn’t working anymore.
Nancy is a woman who has just lost her spouse. Nancy used to work for the county and, because of that, she was unable to receive social security. The United States’ administration is inefficient and becoming more useless, as can be seen when comparing and contrasting the United States with Canada, which does have universal health care. Canada’s healthcare isn’t far off from the United States but differs in certain respects.
One of these key factors is cost and administration. (Woolhandler, Himmelstein, 1991) The cost of health care in the United States has risen, whereas Canada’s expenditure has decreased. One payer (one lump sum) funds Canada’s hospitals and physicians, while several insurance companies account for The United States’ hospitals.
Healthcare administration is a difficult, time-consuming task that requires numerous accounting forms in order to acquire payment and charge insurance and patients. Another reason why healthcare administration in the United States is ineffective is due to private insurance, because the proprietor receives a bigger percentage of premiums than does the federal government. A universal healthcare system could be implemented in the United States; however, it has yet to be put into action. Despite efforts by the Clinton administration, it was rejected for a tenth time previously.
The healthcare sector is changing at a breakneck speed. Although change has been part of healthcare for some time, the underlying causes are multiple when compared to other industries. Healthcare’s perceived status as a right has resulted in legislative adjustments that influence both access and quality of care, contributing to the already high-cost burden.
The entrance of private business corporations into the acute-care markets in the late 1960s has generated a difficult and unpredictable healthcare environment, which jeopardizes the survival of organizations unable to keep up with industry trends (Johnson, 2009). Systematic cooperative learning—or TL for short—helps children develop critical thinking and communication skills that enable them to work together in groups.
James Grier’s Systems Thinker is a system-thinking framework for designing new systems. A thinking style that focuses on the study of, and language for describing and explaining, the forces and relationships that shape system behavior. This field aids in our ability to alter systems more effectively while also aligning us with larger natural and economic processes.
The aim of the present study is to explore how transformational leaders’ actions have an impact on the organization’s culture. The Transformational Leadership Style and Organizational Climate Questionnaires were completed by 139 participants. Previously, a Principal Axis Factoring Technique with varimax rotation procedure was used to factor Leadership Style data into 6 components that were related to 5 organizational climate variables identified in the current research.
The findings revealed the strong impact of transformational leadership behaviors on organizational climate dimensions, suggesting theoretically a maneuvering capacity in an organizational climate with its backward influence over transformational leadership behavior. Perhaps a more sophisticated study is required to verify the latter’s backward influence.
Example #4 – Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care Provision in the United States
Universal health care refers to the provision of healthcare services by a government to all of its citizens (insurerspecialists.com). Such comprehensive healthcare coverage allows each individual to access high-quality medical treatments. Approximately 25 percent of Americans are covered by such a service, which is paid for by the government. The elderly, military personnel and low-income individuals are among them.
In many Western nations, such as Russia, Canada, and several South American and Western European countries, governments provide comprehensive healthcare programs to all residents. In the United States, individuals who do not use government-sponsored health care services finance their own health care coverage. This has become an issue in particular for middle-class individuals.
In the United States, there is a lot of debate about whether or not everyone should have access to universal health care. Supporters and critics abound. This project is a discussion on the subject. It begins with a thesis statement, followed by an examination of the benefits and drawbacks of universal health care coverage, as well as a conclusion that restates the thesis and argument in support of it.
Thesis statement. The government of the United States of America should provide universal health care to its people since everyone, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, or socio-economic status, requires basic healthcare.
Providing adequate health insurance coverage to all individuals would benefit from a discussion. Advantages of universal health care. Doctors and other medical professionals in a system with universal health care services would be able to devote their attention solely to treating patients, as opposed to the current system, where doctors and medical practitioners spend much time dealing with issues of health care insurance for their clients, which is sometimes connected with malpractice and unethical behavior, especially when the patient is unable to pay his or her healthcare expenses.
The introduction of universal health care services in the United States would also make health care service delivery more effective and efficient. In the current system in which each citizen is responsible for his or her own medical treatment, there are significant inefficiencies owing to the public healthcare sector’s bureaucratic nature.
Universal health care would also encourage preventive healthcare, which is beneficial in lowering mortality rates as well as illness deterioration. The current health care system in the United States is ineffective at promoting preventative health care, which leads to many people delaying going for general medical check-ups until their condition has become severe owing to the high expense of general medical check-ups.
The expenditure of money on patients with advanced illnesses is both costly to the individuals and the government, as well as resulting in deaths that can be avoided. Universal health care services would be a noble goal, especially given the evolving number of uninsured people, which currently totals about 45 million.
Furthermore, providing medical services to everyone would increase access to health care for more people, resulting in less suffering and deaths among those who are uninsured. As I stated in the thesis, providing health care services to all people is a basic right that should reduce inequality in service access.
There are no doubt many individuals who believe that universal health care is a good idea because it would provide them with greater coverage for potentially fatal diseases at an affordable cost. However, there are other individuals who feel differently about the matter. For example, while people in developed countries have access to excellent emergency services for life-threatening situations, many middle-income level citizens and business owners in the United States do not have this luxury (Shi and Singh 188).
Finally, providing health care to all citizens of the United States would be beneficial for the country and especially for doctors since it would create a centralized information center with a collection of all cases of sicknesses, illnesses, and their occurrence and frequency. This would make diagnosis easier, particularly in detecting any new strain of a disease that might assist in developing proper medication for such a new illness or condition.
The disadvantages of providing universal health care. One criticism of Universal Health Care in the United States is that it would require a significant increase in taxes to provide for the services in a universal manner. Since health care does not produce additional income, raising taxes or cutting spending for other critical sectors of public concern such as defense and education would be unavoidable.
Another objection to providing universal health care is that delivering medical services is a difficult task with many stakeholders, likes, and preferences. The idea that offering free health care would eliminate the inefficiency of bureaucracy does not appear to be correct since centralizing the healthcare sector merely adds to the paperwork, resulting in even more waste.
It would also harm the insurance businesses and private health care providers, who are mostly serving middle-income people. The argument for universal healthcare might be seen as addressing a nonexistent or minimal problem, in light of the numerous alternatives available to each citizen. This is because there are sufficient choices for everyone to access health care services aside from government hospitals. Private hospitals funded by nongovernmental organizations provide medical treatment to those citizens who are not covered by any form of medical coverage.
The Commission recommends that the government should create a foundation for universal healthcare, which implies limiting the degree of individualization. This would lead to policymakers seeking to maximize their own power and wealth by pursuing unjustified advantages for themselves or their relatives. Excessive individualization may lead to corruption and rent-taking behavior among policymakers, as services could be available for everyone and at times be restricted. The medical sector might deteriorate even more as a result of such a measure, making it even less healthy than it is now.
A national health insurance system would restrict the freedom of US citizens to choose which health care program is best for them. It’s vital to emphasize that the United States, being a capitalist society, includes people with various financial resources. The patients’ flexibility in terms of how, when, and where to access health care services and why would be reduced by universal healthcare coverage.
This is due to the fact that such a regulation would put many independent doctors out of business, forcing virtually all citizens into the government’s healthcare system, which might not be desirable for everybody (Niles 293). Finally, last but not least, providing universal health care would be unfair to people who live healthy lifestyles in order to avoid lifestyle illnesses like obesity and lung cancer, which are quite prevalent in America.
Many people who are overweight got there as a result of their own negligence or lack of understanding about health care advice offered by the government and other medical practitioners. Such a regulation would appear to unjustly penalize individuals who live healthy lives at the expense of those who do not (Niles 293).
Finally, I restate my thesis that “The government of United States of America should provide universal health care to its citizens because health care is a basic need to every citizen, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, or socio-economic status,” and argue that while there are objections to the provision of universal health coverage in the United States (including cost), these arguments are not based on this premise.
The objections are also founded in a capitalist mentality, which is blind to the difficulties of many individuals who are unable to pay for health care coverage. Providing universal health care to Americans would therefore prevent numerous deaths and avoidable agony by many people.
It is equally significant to emphasize that such a policy can be regarded as a win-win solution for the rich and poor or middle-class individuals since it would have no impact on the wealthy unless they had money, in which case they may customize their health care through employment family or personal doctors.
Example #5 – interesting ideas
What is Universal Health Care? I was just curious as to what would happen to those with unique disorders and the need for specialized physicians. Will the government attempt to decide where they go? How could they possibly choose for the parents if a kid’s health depends on the medical care they receive? Update: Who will it be unjust toward? Please enlighten me.
What is the meaning of the word “Answer”?. Universal Health Care is an oxymoron… it isn’t universal, and it’s not “health care”. It’s also socialistic, which means everyone gets to be secure in their old age. We all understand what happens when the uninsured arrive at hospitals… they are given only basic treatment or are discharged after 24 hours if they cannot afford to pay for medical attention. The government would become our health care provider, making life-and-death decisions for the severely ill and aged under Universal Health Care.
Meanwhile, the people who will be “treated” will have a “cost-effective” method for elimination. If the expense is too high, we may expect to be killed. There won’t be a second opinion or any other medical practitioners to visit. Every doctor’s pay will be set at the same level, limiting their ambition and causing them to retire from practice.
Because of the expense, no tests will be accepted. Because medical research would cease to function due to the cost, no medicines will be as effective. Human life will become less important owing to “useless eaters” who only take up room and do not contribute to society’s social order. Our government will determine that you’ll get minimal treatment if you acquire a terminal illness and YOU caused it by smoking, taking drugs, drinking, being overweight, etc.
Toward the end of your illness, you will be put in a dark room with a morphine drip. The same goes for youngsters. In fact, should a fetus be malformed or disabled in any way, the mother will be severely warned that she must have an abortion? Obama passed Universal Health Care by sneakily introducing it as part of his so-called stimulus package, which provided billions to pay for it. I don’t want UHC. It isn’t “free” and it isn’t moral.
To what extent do you believe that people would support a national health insurance plan? A bill has been proposed in Congress that would create a federal government national health insurance program funded by a value-added tax of five percent on every sale made in the United States.
Is it right or wrong? The answer is no. I frequently ask myself a lot of questions when thinking about universal health care since I’ve taken several economics courses. Currently, 43 million Americans have chosen not to obtain medical insurance. What is the purpose of compelling them to acquire it by legislation or through taxation? Public health plays a part in this answer. If I’m surrounded by other healthy individuals, my chances of getting sick are reduced. As a result, I am willing to spend a little money in order to guarantee that you have adequate cash available for your health maintenance needs.
Humans are naturally kind, according to some people. We will not ask if a patient has health insurance before treating him if he is brought into the emergency department in a critical condition. We won’t try to figure out who’s at fault. He will be treated simply because this is a reality. It makes sense to demand that everyone have adequate insurance so they don’t freeload on others’ kindness.
The simplest–and in my view, most successful—way to provide universal health insurance is through a voucher. The federal government would take all of the money it spends on health care via Medicaid, Medicare, and work-subsidized health care and simply distribute it out as a voucher that may only be used for health insurance. You’d be able to spend more than the supplied amount on medical coverage, and you could select the plan that best met your requirements.
In a nutshell, the voucher system merely pushes you to spend a specific amount of your income on health coverage. For the wealthy, this may not be a major issue since they would already want to spend more than the voucher amount anyhow. Poor people might find it more limiting because it compels them to sacrifice a greater proportion of their disposable income.
When it comes to emotions, money solves a lot of problems. Money protects us from being cold or lonely. It also helps us solve many of the ailments that have been mentioned above by allowing people who are otherwise unable to contribute financially themselves (such as those who do not have health insurance) to contribute through their purchases.
With such a system in place, it’s all too easy to distribute wealth. It also makes sense. The elderly, impoverished, and those with hereditary or chronic illnesses will most likely receive more than they contribute. The healthy, wealthy, and wise will generally pay out more than they receive back. This does not bother me as a member of the latter group; my birth certificate does not declare life to be fair. That is your opinion? I’m OK with contributing a little extra to the less fortunate.
I’d go further, though. I’m sure you remember Obamacare’s various promises—free preventive care, the ability to keep your health insurance if you like it and want to stay put, a high-quality plan at an affordable price. There will be no nationalization of any hospitals or anything else in my opinion. Most current bills before Congress are more restrictive and less efficient than I’d desire, but there is still time to promote positive adjustments.
I have to write a 10-page research paper on anything to do with worldwide health care, but I’m at a loss as to what to discuss or which side I want to take. Any suggestions would be fantastic, and if you know of any excellent material that I may utilize, please let me know. Thanks very much.
Ans. Why isn’t health care available to all citizens of the United States as a right? The United States is the only industrialized country without universal health coverage as a right of citizenship. 28 countries, including 1 (Germany) with a multipayer universal healthcare system like that proposed by President Bill Clinton for the United States, have single-payer universal health care systems.
Conclusion: Despite having the greatest-trained health care professionals and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized country, the United States ranks poorly in health care compared to other industrialized nations.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.