Post 6: Healthcare:
The number 2 polling issue in the election is healthcare. In order to better understand the debate concerning healthcare we’re going to explore this area of national policy and the issue of federalism.
**To what degree is it the national or state government’s responsibility to make sure that their citizens/residents have healthcare? Who is better suited to deal with our healthcare crisis: private industry, state governments, or the national government? Why? What solution do you favor?
Use news articles and research to build your case. I would particularly recommend going to interest group and think tank websites for research for this assignment. I would also recommend looking at the first half of Edwards’ ch 19 for background and terminology for this discussion.
If you are having trouble finding research please see me for help. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
No one can deny the importance of healthcare in the lives of Americans and on the national agenda. In the past 30 years, healthcare as a share of GDP has doubled and by 2035, it will constitute more than 30% of GDP (1). A trend this large cannot be the sole responsibility of the citizens involved in it. I believe healthcare is a fundamental right that should be available to all Americans. The 47 million uninsured Americans should not have to worry about being able to pay the next time they get sick or their child breaks their arm (2).
I do not believe it should be the employers responsibility to provide health insurance, and I believe in the dismantling of the private health insurance system. 27.4 million Americans are without healthcare because their employers do not provide it, they do not qualify with their employer or their premium is too much to pay even if they qualify (2). This is a system in severe disrepair, and it is not the fault of ordinary Americans. Therefore, I believe in a state-sponsored universal healthcare program.
I think the state government is the most efective way to provide healthcare for all. I do not believe the national government should be as responsible for this because there are many varying conditions between states. For example, states with lots of air pollution like New York need to proiritize resperatory conditions whereas the sunbelt states would focus more on care for the elderly. A one-size-fits-all healthcare system could be devestating for dealing with the individual needs of 50 completely different demographics and climates.
That said, I do not believe the federal government should be completely uninvolved. Without federal tax money and supervision, many people would slip through the cracks. Assistance in the form of funding could come from federal mandated block grants where states would recieve funding once they established an universal insurance plan. If a state could not come up with a comprehensive solution in the alotted time, say 5-10 years, all federal health money would be taken away. I know this is harsh, but a change this big must be swift and country-wide.
If we can create a state-based, federally-regulated healthcare system, I think our country will be much better off.
Sources:
1. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
2. http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
The United States spends more on healthcare than any other industrialized country, but we are far from having the healthiest population. Health insurance in America usually comes along with employment, and the number one reason why people do not have health insurance is because they are poor (1). I believe that the state and federal governments are the solution to this issue, and that they should be responsible for providing healthcare to all citizens no matter their income.
According to a poll by the Washington Post, Americans prefer a universal program to the current program by a 2-1 margin. 78% of Americans are dissatisfied with the current cost of healthcare, and 54% with the quality in general. Many Americans also admitted to putting off medical treatment in the last year only because of the cost (3). There is no question that a change needs to take place.
States should be the most responsible in ensuring that all members are provided for because it would be more effective to deal with this issue on a specialized basis. As Elise said, people from different states are naturally going to have different needs, and it would just be easier this way. Some states are already taking action to help their citizens. Massachusetts, for example, passed legislation in 2006 with the aim of covering all of its citizens by the end of 2007 (2). I think that the national government should be involved in order to oversee everything and make sure all is working out correctly. The federal government would also need to give money to the states for this plan to be a possibility. To sum it all up, my solution to the problem is that the states should be responsible for providing healthcare for their citizens while the national government would check in and help out financially.
In conclusion, healthcare is a very important issue right now in the US, and I believe that the best idea would be to provide care to all US citizens. I do not think that people should avoid going to the doctor or getting medical treatment just because it is too expensive; health should not depend on income.
1.Edwards
2.http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhcupdates.cfm
3.http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
The health care industry is one of the most important and fastest growing industries in the United States. Although we are considered amongst the superpowers of the world, leading in medical research, economic discoveries, and scientific exploration, the United States has fallen behind in the health of its citizens. As rated by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States has a lower life expectancy that 36 other countries around the world, including Cuba, considered an enemy of the United States (1). We can approach the health care debate from two sides, what is better for the health of American citizens, and what is better for the economy. At the end, it is clear to see that I favor a single-payer system, which provides health care for all, regardless of ability to pay.
Critics of the United States health care system advocate a single-payer system, under which one entity, normally the government, collects and pays for all health care costs. This approach has proven to be effective in numerous countries, namely Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and even Cuba (which, despite bankruptcy, infrastructure problems, and a lack of sanitary hospitals, has the same life expectancy of the United States (1)). A single-payer system is all encompassing, covering all health care expenses, ranging from prescription drug costs to mental health care, and home disability (2).
Currently, private industry controls the health care system. Hundreds of insurance companies compete for millions of customers, all while compromising the health of Americans. Concerned with whether or not “insurance will pay for it”, Americans run the risk of forgoing important medical procedures because of their inability to pay.
Spending nearly twice as much as other countries and experiencing such miserable results, one begins to wonder what exactly has gone wrong within the United States health care system. Some countries boast the benefits of Universal health care, while spending less per capita on health care costs. For example, the country of Switzerland spends 11% of its GDP on health care for all of its citizens. The United States on the other hand, spends 15% of its GDP on health care, and still has 50 million uninsured citizens. While insurance companies and health corporations report profits, millions of Americans are thrown into debt after being unable to afford care for themselves or their families (1). At the point in which our for-profit healthcare system becomes economically inefficient, something is clearly wrong.
Disease and sickness is blind, it affects all ages, races, and socioeconomic level; it’s time to replace our greedy mentality with concern for others and make the steps toward universal health care for all.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/cuba-has-better-medical-c_b_19664.html.
2.http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.php
3. Edwards
As a strong supporter of privatized healthcare, I believe the government has virtually no responsibility to make sure citizens are receiving healthcare. Healthcare provided by the national or state government is, in my opinion, an awful idea. (1) A universal healthcare system destroys patient incentives to find the best possible services and products available to them. People no longer get to choose their physician and choose healthcare partners, which eliminates privacy and the relationship some people build with their physician. (2) Universal healthcare detroys physician incentives to provide competitive care and eliminates drug companies' incentives to provide new drugs and treatments. Lower pay of physicians decreases incentives to provide quality care and both physicians and nurses leave the gvernment monopolized area for better opportunities. Drug companies are also hindered by price constraints and regulations and soon cease to reasearch and develop new medication. (3) "Free" healthcare isn't really free. Taxes will be much higher, especially for the upperclass, in order to operate a national healthcare system.(4) Due to the decreased pay of physicians, the quality of "free" healthcare will deteriorate and the average citizen will get sicker.(5) Procedures such as hip replacements may take months until the actual surgery can be performed due to a long waiting list.
www.angelfire.com
www.balancedpolitics.org
I feel that the government has a minimal responsibility to ensure its citizens of healthcare. While many people currently lack health care coverage, some believe that the amount truly lacking health care is overstated (1). And while universal health care may be able to better support those who currently lack health care, I feel the costs of this solution would outweigh the benefits. In fact, countries that currently have a universal health care system like Britain, Sweden, and Canada are already starting to make changes to their systems (1). One of the biggest problems that would occur from universal health care would be the loss of doctors and medicine. Under universal health care, doctors and other health care workers would have less incentive to stay at their jobs and may be tempted to leave to a less regulated job field. Also, medical researchers would have less incentive to research and develop new drugs as they would not be able to cover their costs because of loss in profits. Privacy will also be invaded with a universal health care system. Additionally, lines will grow and it will become harder to schedule appointments. Not only that but costs and taxes will also rise (2). How will people react when they find out that there tax money is being paid for someone needing lung cancer treatments because that person smoked his or her whole life (3)? These reasons are why I feel that the privatization of health care is the best set up. While the system may have flaws to it, I feel that attempting to fix some of these flaws would be much better than trying to create a universal health care system.
1. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2007/11/14/Columns/Boris.Ryvkin.09.No.To.Universal.Health.Care-3099863.shtml
2. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=44064
3. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaryvoices/2007/11/universal_health_care.html
I will begin with saying that I believe access to healthcare should be a fundamental right. It should not depend on employment or ability to pay. Because of this, I think that it is the government’s responsibility to provide universal, or at least affordable, healthcare for its citizens. I would support Representative Betty McCollum’s (from Minnesota) proposed Healthcare Protection Amendment which would add the right to healthcare to the Constitution (1).
In terms of a healthcare plan, I think that this would be an area best served by cooperative federalism, with both the state and national levels of government playing a role. While the states will be able to tailor healthcare plans best to their state’s different needs, the federal government will be needed for funding and to maintain some measures of consistency. Overall, I think it is mostly the state’s responsibility to provide healthcare for its residents.
As some people have mentioned already, the state would be the best level of government to implement healthcare plans. As of now, the states present a variety of different healthcare needs as a result of diversity in population and geographic location. People of different races have higher instances of specific diseases and location brings in issues such as sun exposure and other environmental factors. The age of a state’s population is also important as the elderly generally demand more prescription drugs and healthcare services overall. There amount of money spent on healthcare and the amount of healthcare needed also varies drastically across the country (2), as does the percentage of people with healthcare and the amount of money the state spends on healthcare. The southern and western states tend to have high percentages of uninsured residents, while the midwestern and eastern states have considerably less (3). People also value healthcare differently, some seeing universal healthcare as necessary to being a developed country, while others see it as “socialized medicine.
While I think that the states should play a key role in implementing an effective universal healthcare plan, I think that action from the federal government is also necessary. It is estimated that a universal healthcare system would cost around $35-69 billion (4). Massachusetts’ healthcare plan, which is probably the closest to a universal system in the nation, costs about $1.4 billion (5). The national government would have to help the states supply funding if a universal system is implemented. I also think that the national government needs to be involved in order to maintain a degree of consistency in health care systems across the nation. While the state programs may be tailored to serve a more specific group of people, I think that it is important that they are all of the same quality. I would assume that the “full faith and credit” principle would apply and that citizens of different states would have access to the healthcare provided in different states. If a certain level of quality was not maintained, citizens of states with poorer healthcare systems would take advantage of the states with better healthcare system, thereby placing a burden on those states with the best healthcare. I also think that the national government would have to initiate a universal healthcare plan like with the proposed Healthcare Protection Amendment (1).
(1) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.42:
(2)http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Cunningham_overburdenedoverwhelmed_1073_ib.pdf?section=4039
(3) http://www.allhealth.org/Publications/pub_7.pdf
(4) http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
(5) http://www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/Cato-MAGood,Bad,Ugly-940.pdf
Healthcare in the United States is a sticky topic. I feel that there is so much information that I don’t know, even after surfing the internet for over an hour. I also think there is a lot of information I will never thoroughly understand, but my research and personal experiences had led me to make some decisions on how I feel about healthcare. First of all I believe that the government does have to take some responsibility for making sure that its citizens get healthcare, but not total responsibility.
It’s true that the healthcare industry has lots of problems including rising costs, problems with managed care, and a huge number of uninsured. Americans spend 13% of our GDP on healthcare (1). Many people have found the healthcare industry and health insurance too expensive and are having to go without. In 1990, 36 million Americans had no health insurance and that number has grown every year since (1).
Many people have suggested universal healthcare and its benefits, but I feel that its negatives out weigh the benefits. First of all, I believe the overall quality of our healthcare would decline. Countries that already have universal healthcare are straining medical staff, making some people wait years to have surgery, and people still feel it necessary to buy their own insurance to back up the government’s. When Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare plan providing for universal healthcare, 72% of people polled were afraid they might not have good choices of doctors and hospitals (2). Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution, commenting on universal healthcare said, “It is a waste to have us drawn into a bureaucratic maze, in order to cover routine things like annual checkups or occasional antibiotics.” (1) Many also believe that it would be nearly impossible to give good healthcare to 295 million people under a government program.
Currently, in this country, we have Medicaid and Medicare to aid the poor, disabled and elderly. These, however, are not getting the job done. In theory they are good, but reforms could set them at their full potential. One program we also have that I think could do great things is the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, run by both the national and state governments (3). This provides healthcare to children whose families are not poor enough to get Medicaid, but still cannot pay for healthcare(3). The budget for this program should be expanded, so that it can really be beneficial.
I realize that just reforming these programs would not solve our healthcare problems, but I think it would be a good start. I believe that the state governments are better equipped to help ease the healthcare burden. I think they know better how to serve their constituents than the federal government. Some states are already examples of this. Hawaii requires almost all employers to give their employees health insurance (4). As soon as this was put into action, the number of uninsured dropped (4). In Vermont, legislators discovered that many problems with their healthcare system revolved around chronic care, so they aimed at making chronic care better managed and more affordable (4). I believe the states are also good testers for national government programs.
In conclusion, the government should take some responsibility for healthcare in the United States, but the state governments often can be more effective at this. I believe that universal health care is not the solution to the crisis; we need to reform some of the system we already have.
Sources:
1) "Introduction to Health Care: Opposing Viewpoints." Opposing Viewpoints: Health Care. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. JEFFERSON SR HIGH SCHOOL- MN. 2 Dec. 2007
2)
"A Big Concern." (ABC News/ Washington Post, October 7-10, 1993 ).Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. JEFFERSON SR HIGH SCHOOL- MN. 2 Dec. 2007
3)
http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/Search/i1200620.asp
4)
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/dhmaine.htm
for whatever reason the blog would not allow me to post the gale group html
The numbers of Americans in our country without health insurance and access to adequate health care is astounding, nearly 44 million people don't even have health insurance! This is the United States of America for goodness sake! Aren't we supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the world? To me, it looks like were failing. In the federal budget 20% goes towards spending on healthcare.
I think it is the combination of federal and state governments to work in tandem to tackle the healthcare problem. All Americans deserve affordable healthcare and the security of knowing that their country will take care of them when they are ill. When one of your fellow Americans cannot pay for their healthcare and are sick the payments that are not made fall upon those of us who ARE insured. IT becomes OUR responsibility and our premiums go up and the cost of everything from going in for a check up to rushing to the ER is skyrocketing. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not you'll feel the pinch in your pocket book later on.
Our government must find a solution to healthcare for our citizens because if we become healthier people we will do a heck of a lot better on things that really need our attention.
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/healthinsurance.html
“As a nation we spend a far larger share of our national income on health than any other industrialized country and yet we are far from having the healthiest population (1).” Many controversies arise when discussing the issue of health care. Although the majority of Americans are covered by some form of health insurance, over 43 million have no coverage and the majority of people who are uninsured, are non-whites. An explanation for this statistic can be partially found in the fact that health insurance is usually tied with employment and thus is more often privately awarded rather than publicly, through the government (1).
“Universal health care refers to the idea that every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care (2).” While most industrialized countries consider health care to be a basic right, the U.S. reserves it to those who can afford it. Although private health care comes most often from employers, many American’s who are employed still do not receive health care because it is either too expensive, unavailable, or they do not qualify. “As a result of these difficulties accessing health care, the non-partisan Institute of Medicine estimates that the uninsured have an excess annual mortality rate of 25% (2).” In a country that some consider having the best health care in the world, this is unacceptable.
The solutions to this problem vary greatly. I believe the only way to honor health care and services as a human right is to make it universal. A study done by economist Dr. Kenneth Thorpe in 2005 calculated the costs to the government of instituting four different health care systems. His studies concluded that creating a universal, publicly financed plan, coupled with cost controls, would actually save the most money over ten years (2).
(1) Edwards, Government in America
(2)http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
Currently, the United States is the only developed nation to not have some sort of health care for all of it’s citizens (2facts.com). I think that in a country where so many have so much, everyone should be guaranteed health care. This could best be accomplished with a single-payer system. In a single-payer system, all health care is payed for by one source, the government. By having the federal and state government in charge of health care, health care could be provided equally to all citizens.
The fact that the United States’ health care system is lacking is widely acknowledged. In the U.S., more is spent on health care per person than in many other countries, including France and Canada - which provide health care for all of their citizens. With many HMOs, doctors are actually given incentives to give their patients as little care as possible(2facts.com). Currently, more than 18,000 people in the U.S. die every year because they lack health insurance. To me, it seems unacceptable that 45 million people in the U.S. lack health insurance when so many other countries have found success with universal single-payer health care.
While some people consider universal health care a band idea because it could raise taxes and make government more involved in our lives, I believe health care should be a right. Even if the U.S. were to adopt a form of universal health care, people could still buy their own private health care, like in Quebec. The U.S. is in a health care crisis. 62% of U.S. citizens would prefer Universal health care over out current system while only 33% support our current system. Clearly, the U.S.’s health care system needs to change.
http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/64137tempi0200960.asp
http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/62363tempi1000510.asp#i1000510_3
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/dhmaine.htm
I am a supporter of the amendment to the constitution to make health care a constitutionally protected right proposed by Representative McCollum.(1) I believe that every citizen should have the ability to receive health care regardless of financial status and whether or not they have a job. According to the center for studying health system polls of all uninsured adults that believe they need to receive professional care only 36% end up ever seeing a doctor to obtain care as opposed to 82% of adults that are insured.(2)
One of the fundamental values that this country was founded on is the protection of life liberty and property. I believe that denying anyone adequate healthcare is a fundamental misstep in the in the pursuit of achieving this goal. I also believe that the quality of healthcare you are able to receive should not depend on your financial status. I believe the advances in the abilities of medicine to cure ailments should be extended to all Americans because I believe it is a fundamental right every person should be entitled to enjoy.
I believe that funding should come both from states and from federal government. I think it falls under national governments responsibility to ensure that all citizens are equally protected and able to receive adequate health care in all parts of this great nation. After all the goal of making health care a protected right is not to make some states healthcare for uninsured citizens much better or much worse than any other state. I believe that if this were to pass that the healthcare should be equally funded throughout the nation in order to ensure that all citizens of all states receive equal health care.
1. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.42:
2. http://www.allhealth.org/Publications/pub_7.pdf
The issue of healthcare is an ever-debated and an important issue. Some say that the national government should create a Universal Healthcare system and therefore ensure that all Americans have access to medical care. Creating a Universal Healthcare system is a complex idea. Some would argue that as being one of the richest nations in the world, all or our citizens should have access to healthcare. Currently, over 40 million people are uninsured and healthcare is becoming increasingly less affordable for individuals and employers (2). Critics say we should not enact a universal healthcare system. A Universal Healthcare system they argue only would increase taxes and reduce competition, motives, and lead to a more expensive, ineffective system (1).
Others argue healthcare is a matter of safety and therefore should be left up to each individual state how healthcare should be administered. I do not think that such a critical issue should be left up to the states. A good reason for leaving jurisdiction to the states is if different regions of the country have different needs—this issue does not qualify because everyone needs healthcare.
I think the most effective way to approach this issue is on a national level so that our healthcare system in its entirety is consistent. With a universal system we could: develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors, medical professionals can concentrate on helping their patients instead of on insurance procedures, and free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and confront problems early when treatment is still light (1). To those that argue that a universal system will only increase taxes and make healthy people pay for the obese and smokers in our country I say that this is a valid argument, and I view at as a downside of such a system. But like most issues, there are negative points. Any system that gives more government assistance to Americans simultaneously takes a little more out of the pockets of its citizens. I believe if it is economically feasible to give healthcare to every sick child and elderly adult in America, then it should be put into effect.
(1) www.balancedpolitics.org
(1) 2.http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhcupdates.cfm
“The promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a lie without universal access to health care” (Bradley Whitford) (1). I could not agree more with this statement. Health care is essential to ensuring people’s fundamental right of life. Our current healthcare system is failing too many Americans. 47 million U.S citizens are uninsured and tens of millions of Americans are concerned about becoming uninsured due to a potential change in employment. It is time for all Americans to have the security of a universal health care system that ensures access based on their needs as opposed to their salary (3). Although, Medicare and Medicaid provide some help to the elderly and poor, only 42% of those below the poverty line actually qualify for Medicaid. This leaves the other 58% of those in a troubled state. They must pay 100% of their medical bills and they are the ones who are least likely to be able to afford this. As a result, uninsured adults are four times more likely to not see a doctor when they need to in comparison to those who have health insurance. This only worsens their condition. Furthermore, uninsured adults are less likely to receive screenings to detect cancer at its early stages than adults with coverage. This results in many poor people suffering from later stages of cancer while also facing even larger medical bills for treatment (4). Don McCanne, MD states, "Private health plans work for people who do not and never will need health care (1). Another problem with the current privatized healthcare system is that those who have suffered from a disease are far less likely to find a health insurance company that will cover them (5). For all of these reasons, it is the government’s responsibility to make sure that their citizens and residents have healthcare. The government must play a central role in regulating, financing and providing health care. The current system allows for too many people to fall through the cracks. I believe that the state governments are the best equipped to deal with healthcare based on what meets the needs for their population. It is the federal government’s role to oversee this process and provide aid to the states to carry out a universal healthcare system. Although a universal healthcare system will be costly to Americans, it is well worth the cost to ensure that all people are taken care of in this country. There are certain things that people are entitled to; healthcare is one of them.
1.http://americanhealthcarereform.org/
2. Edwards (background)
3.http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/ecouncil/ec03062007.cfm
4.http://covertheuninsured.org/media/releases/index.php?ReleaseID=1004
5.www.startribune.com
It is interesting how the USA spends 13.9% of its GDP for healthcare and on average each American pays $5500 a year on healthcare. Yet we have one of the shortest life expectancies and more deaths of children than any other industrialized nation. Roughly $2 trillion a year is spent on health care, and still it is quite clear that a reform is in order. Today most people use an HMO to cover an individual’s healthcare through annual fees. About 60% of Americans are covered under HMO plans. Medicare, a government subsidized program, covers the elderly. But some Americans pay all their healthcare bills on their own. Currently 43 million Americans are not insured and pay for the costs out of their own pocket.
All 3 levels of government pay for about 46% of the national health care bill. It is quite clear that higher-income workers receive better healthcare tax breaks than low-income workers, which is disproportionate and unfair. With arising issues of obesity and AIDS, as well as the war in Iraq is creating major debt, it is near impossible for the national government to fund all the needs of America. Therefore, I think it is more of the state’s responsibility to cover their residents’ health needs. I believe a national income tax will still be needed to provide states with money to fund healthcare costs, but that is should be left up to the individual state to decide exactly how to spend that money. States would be better at adhering to the needs of its people, knowing exactly who needs what and for how much. Each region across American faces different problems, including healthcare problems.
Solutions to the healthcare crisis are broad. Ideas such as better prescription drug coverage, patient BOR, care coordination services, and vertical integration of hospitals are up for discussion. I do not know what the best approach would be, but something is better than nothing. And I believe baby steps should be taken before we radically chuck our current system and start fresh. It is important a change is made because baby boomers are getting older and within a decade we have to have a better grip on our healthcare.
1. Edwards
2. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26413,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
3. http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Program_View.cfm?PID=3
4. http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/1249C67EF12FD7268525726A00142F18
The New York Times has declared our health care conundrum, “The worst long-term fiscal crisis facing the nation.” They say, “It demands a solution, but finding one will not be easy or palatable” (4). Simply put, I concur. The rising costs of health care have become increasing and undeniably tolling on the nation and our system is anything but perfect. The United States spends two times as much on health care as any comparable industrialized nation, and yet 46 million Americans are completely uninsured and an additional 50 million are underinsured. Our current system is for-profit, meaning that private insurance providers earn a dividend on each account. Nearly two trillion dollars are spent on health care each year and one fourth of that amount is dedicated solely to our profit-seeking system’s corporate expenditures. As the cost of private health insurance continues to rise at rates between 13 and 25 percent annually, less and less people become able to afford this basic provision. Dr. Marcia Angell of Harvard Medical School noted that, “Health care is targeted not to medical need, but to the ability to pay…We are the only nation in the world with a health care system based on dodging sick people” (1). Even those with benefits are weary of the expensive costs associated with a visit to their physician. A 2007 survey found that 50% of people reportedly delay going to the doctor. Our nation spends the most on health care, and on a system that people avoid using? The same 2007 survey found that 47% of people believe that this system, “Requires major change” (3). Once again, I concur. The future for health care appears beyond bleak. National health care costs are expected to double to four trillion dollars by 2016, roughly eight years from now. In ten years, it is estimated that health care costs will account for $1 in every $5 spent in the US. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said, “America’s per capita health spending is the highest in the world. There is simply no place on the economic leader board for a nation that spends a fifth of its domestic product on health care” (2).
The proposal that appears best suited for our nation is a single-payer system. Administered by a public agency, a single-payer system would provide all Americans with basic and necessary coverage as well as choice of doctors and facilities. This system eliminates profit-seeking insurance companies, as well as eliminating co-payments for doctor visits. Regional plans would be specific to area needs and would be publicly accountable. The savings incurred from switching to a single-payer system would be enough to provide comprehensive health care without increasing current costs. The annual savings on wasteful office paperwork and filing alone would amount to $350 billion (1). This modern model has been successfully implemented in many countries throughout the world, including Denmark, Sweden, and Canada. The United States Medicare program operates as a single-payer system, providing health insurance to most citizens 65 years and older (5). With its clear benefits and known success, the single-payer system is an effective solution to America’s health care strife. Presidential hopeful and universal healthcare advocate Dennis Kucinich expressed, “This single move towards health care for all can bring about a dramatic shift in the American economy and in the lives of every man, woman and child in the United States” (1).
Sources
1. http://www.pnhp.org/
2 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17248734/
3. http://www.ebri.org/publications/notes/index.cfm?fa=notesDisp&content_id=3857
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
5. http://www.amsa.org/uhc/SinglePayer101.pdf
The Heritage Foundation says that right now, government spends almost 50 cents out of every health care dollar. (1) That to me is scary especially when many people in the US don't have proper health care. I will make it clear form the beginning that I think that the current health care system really stinks. In 2005, 47 million people or 16 percent of the American population did not have health care coverage and the reason why this happens is because a third of the firms in the US do not offer health care. (2) Compared to other countries the US is not doing very much for the population in regard to health care. The US, most of the African countries and some Asian countries do not have universal healthcare. This to me is very scary. Since the US is one of the greatest superpowers in the world, I would assume it cares about its population. In a study from 2005, it was shown that the US has less doctors, nurses, hospital beds and CT scanners per capita than most industrialized countries in the world. (3) If this is true, then why can other countries cope with with the cost of health care and the US can't? No one really has an answer to this and the conservative think tank believes that universal health care would like the government buying you a car. The example they use is the one of a car. A person has three choices, the government can buy him or her a car, the government can buy a person a car based on demographics and the last choice is that a person is allowed to buy their own car.(3) A human's health is not the same as a car. When people get sick they want to go to the doctor. They don't want to think about how much it will cost them to go to the doctor. The 47 million people who don't have health care, have to make that decision whenever they get sick. The Brookings institute says that out of 45 uninsured people 18,000 will die prematurely. (4) If the US would offer health care to everyone and not to just poor or older people, those 18,000 deaths could probably be avoided.
I think that the national government should take charge of the problem because not having universal healthcare is more expensive than having universal health care. The people that have to pay for their own health care, sometimes have trouble paying their medical bills and then they turn to other government agencies to help them out with their bills. Also hospitals provide $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year. (2)
In conclusion, after seeing how much it costs the government to have people without healthcare, the only solution is to have universal healthcare. Maybe taxes will change but if people will not have to pay for health care every month then they will have more money to spend on other stuff and also they will not even feel the money leaving their paychecks. Also younger people will not have problems with paying especially because they will benefit from this too.
Also if you go to this picture it shows how the world manages its health care: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png
1)http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl1051.cfm
2)http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
3)http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=283969
4)http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl1051.cfm
5)http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/07useconomics_furman.aspx
As health care is no a guarantee with employment, it is time for Americans to reevaluate our health care system. This action should be taken hand in hand by the state and national government. Fifty-four percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the quality of the current health care systems in the United States. This includes insured and uninsured Americans. (1) Also, twenty-three percent of Americans have said they or someone in their family has put off medical treatment because of the cost. (1) A system where the employer determines health care is not working, and a reform must be made.
Many small firms do not offer health coverage to their employees. This is because of the rapidly rising premiums for health insurance. Even when coverage is offered with the job, employees can’t afford their portion of the premium. (2) Dependent on a health care system revolved around employment has many additional flaws. If an employee voluntarily quits or loses their job, the insurance coverage disappears as well. In some cases the loss of insurance also affects the ex-employee’s family members, as the coverage is revoke from them. (2)
I do not believe the United States will function with universal health care provided by the national government. However, the national government needs to step in and join the state governments in taking control of health care away from private industries. If the individual state governments with national government contributions provide health care, the American health care system will be more reliable and sufficient.
(1)http://abcnews.go.com/sections/
living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
(2)http://www.nchc.org/facts/ coverage.shtml
I think that states should have the most responsibility for healthcare programs, and I do believe our current system needs fundamental changes (according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.6 million people were uninsured in 2005) (4). I think states should have more responsibility because they can make a system that accounts for the size of the state and medical problems found there. I think it is the duty of government to play a role in healthcare so that healthcare is available for people of all classes. However, I think the universal healthcare system has proven problems and is not the best way to provide quality healthcare for all. I think healthcare is very important, and I think serious changes must be made to our system; I just do not think a universal healthcare system would be effective.
First of all, in a universal healthcare system, doctors would have to do extra work at their own expense because their total profits are capped (1). This would take away much of the incentive for doctors to do more than the maximum specified amount of work to increase their income. In the end, that leads to less care being given to people.
Dean Forman notes that in a universal healthcare system, there will be a cap on the total spending, which means that rationing of medical goods and services must ensue (2). For example, according to the Fraser Institute, which produces statistics in Canada, rationing for the Canadian universal healthcare system occurs in the form of non-price rationing (rationing by waiting). This means patients are put on waiting lists to receive medical counsel or treatment (3). A problem with rationing is noted in a Fraser Institute article, which states a woman who works and has the same condition as her non-working spouse would have an equal wait time, but the woman would lose more money because she can’t work. The article also notes that inequalities occur as it says, “Preferential access to cardiovascular surgery on the basis of nonclinical factors such as personal prominence or political connections is common [in Canada]” (3).
Another problem is that the government would regulate healthcare and make rules on treating certain medical issues (1). This could be a problem for the individual needs of patients, as doctors would need to follow strict procedures on how to deal with medical problems for a universal healthcare system to work. I also think that when the competition in healthcare is gone, as it would be in a universal healthcare system, the incentive for hospitals and medical practitioners to give the best care possible is decreased.
The article from the Fraser Institute notes that in 2006, approximately 39,282 Canadians left Canada for non-emergency medical treatment; in 2007 the number increased to 47,044. These numbers are actually smaller than the actual, as some people would not notify their doctors about their surgeries abroad (3). The article also noted that “in 2000-01, Statistics Canada data showed that an estimated 4.3 million Canadians had difficulties obtaining routine care, health information or advice, immediate care for minor health issues, and other first contact services…approximately 1.4 million Canadians had difficulties gaining access to specialist visits, non-emergency surgery, and selected diagnostic tests” (3). I think we should seriously look at the problems other countries are having from their universal healthcare systems before we attempt to start a universal system of our own.
My last point about universal healthcare systems involves mortality rates. It is true that America a bad infant mortality rate and life expectancy. However, other countries with a universal healthcare system do not have the lowest mortality rates for some other diseases. For example, the mortality rate for breast cancer is 25%; while in some countries with a universal healthcare system the rates are higher (Britain and New Zealand 46%and Canada 28%). For prostate cancer, the mortality rate for America is 19%, while in other countries it is much higher once again (Britain 57%, Canada 25% and France 49%) (1). Information like this makes me doubt the effectiveness of a universal healthcare system.
(1) www.galegroup.com (Orient, Jane)
(2) www.galegroup.com (Forman, Dean)
(3) www.fraserinstitute.edu
(4) http://www.nationalacademies.org/headlines/20060907.html
I think that it should be the main responsibility of the state governments to provide this healthcare. States would have a much easier time creating programs that would meet the specific needs of its citizens. For instance a state like Florida, which has an extremely high percentage of elderly population (in 2005 16.8% of the population was 65 years and older, about 4.5% above the national average), can create programs that will better address and assist this segment of their population (1).
I don’t think that a national healthcare system would work very well for a number of reasons. Our nation is so massive and populated that it would be extremely expensive to do a nationally based healthcare system. Also there is no way the national government can create a program that can meet the specific needs of the diverse population of our country.
I also don’t think that private industry should be the ones responsible for universal healthcare in this country. They basically are already in the driver’s seat when it comes to providing healthcare, and frankly I don’t think that they are doing a very good job. Costs of premiums through them are ridiculously high, so high that 46.6 million Americans are uninsured. People who are in poor health or older may not be able to afford these high premiums. Also private insurance companies do something called “medical underwriting”, which is when the companies don’t offer coverage at all or if they charge very high premiums to those people who are sicker and will have higher healthcare costs (2).
I personally favor the solution of states providing healthcare to their citizens. I think that it is extremely important that government makes sure that its citizens all have healthcare if they want it. I don’t think that the government should be able to force citizens to do something that they don’t want to do. Massachusetts is trying to achieve universal healthcare on a state level. They required every uninsured adult to buy some type of health insurance policy. The state of Massachusetts is treating this the same way that they treat car insurance: everyone is required to have some kind of insurance. Many people can’t afford health care and aren’t worried about getting or having serious health issues (3).
(1)http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html
(2)http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html
Michelle Ludwig
Harry S. Truman was the first president with the idea for national heath insurance; however this idea was quickly shot down by the American Medical Association because they considered it “socialized medicine” (1). Today, there are more than 43 million people in our country with out health care coverage and the debate over how to solve this has grown increasingly more important (1). President Clinton tried to help this issue during his presidency by making it a requirement for all employers to provide health insurance for their employees; however this failed to work due to small businesses not being able to afford that extra expense (1). This is why I feel that it should not be left up to the employers to pay their employee’s health insurance. There are simply certain business’s out there that can’t afford to pay that kind of price, and putting employer’s in charge will damage the ability for small businesses to get started, affecting the society we live in, and leaving us with Wal-Marts all over the place. According to recently polling, 62% of American’s have said that they would prefer a universal governmentally funded medical care system (1). In our country, health care is seen as a privilege rather than a right and the United States is currently the only industrialized nation that doesn’t provide some form of universal healthcare (2). People not recieiving health care in this country aren’t simply unemployed people who choose not to search for jobs, but rather 80% of the uninsured are employed but don’t have insurance because their employers don’t offer it or the employer’s share of the premium is too expensive (2). Again, this is why I feel that employers shouldn’t be responsible. Personally, I feel that the state government would be the best at providing health insurance to their people. I agree a lot with what Elise Gale said in her post. I feel like health insurance from the national government would be too broad, and wouldn’t be able to take into consideration all of the differences between the states. I feel like the state government would do the best job, because they have the best knowledge of both the climate/geography of their state as well as the type of people who live there. Overall I feel like health insurance should be a right to all people. The more uninsured can lead to a lower economy, higher rates with diseases, as well as a stronger drain on businesses (2). Therefore, I feel that universal health care would bring about more positives than negatives.
1. Edwards
2. http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
I believe that every American should have access to affordable high quality health care. The way I see it, citizens of this country should not be denied health care for any reason. There are alot of people saying that if our country has universal health care people won't be able to choose which their doctor. In this case I don't see that as entirely true. In Canada citizens enjoy free choice of their physicians with few financial barriers. And even if lack of choice were to become an issue I would much rather live in a country in which every person is given the right of health care rather than in a country where rich people whine about not being able to choose their doctor while others are ill and without treatment.
I believe that it is the national government's full responsibility to make sure that their citizens have healthcare. I think that first and foremost the national government would be best suited to deal with our healthcare crisis because that means that healthcare will not be selective according to where a person lives or anything like that. Every person in evry state will get equal opportunity. That is why I agree with the idea of adding healthcare as a right in the Constitution.
Keeping our current healthcare system is another way in which our country further oppresses the poor and minority groups of our society.
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
http://www.amsa.org/studytours/CHS_FactSheet.pdf
Though many people look towards the federal government and universal coverage as the answer to health care costs, I believe that the government should become involved as an overseer rather than implementer of health care. The state and national government should work together to oversee that people in a specific state get the health care coverage that they need. I think that universal coverage can be achieved using private sector insurers. The Swiss and the Dutch have achieved universal coverage using private sector insurers. Switzerland and the Netherlands have both achieved higher satisfaction and care under their universal health care systems at a lower cost than in the United States (1).
The government should act as an overseer in the health industry but not micromanage the health care suppliers. This is because such micromanagement reduces innovation in the health care industry. Currently, the United States pays for hospital stays and doctor visits. So when medical innovators reduce the number of hospital visits, they lose money (1). This needs to change so that there is an incentive to reduce the number of hospital visits. The government could help oversee that everyone can afford health care and make sure that the private industries offer a minimum number of benefits. The benefits might be different from state to state because different states have different needs. For example, the Sunbelt states, which have a larger elderly population, might need more benefits related to back problems.
Health care can still be improved in the United States working under the current system. One thought is to lower the costs of health care through research. The AARP places the emphasis not so much on government programs to provide health care but instead on the federal government lowering the costs of the health care industry (2). The CBO reports that at the rate Medicaid and Medicare are growing, by 2050, they will make up 20 percent of our GDP. One problem is that more expensive health care does not necessarily mean higher quality. Though advances in medical technology allow doctors to treat more diseases, it also substantially increases costs to the health care industry (3). The federal government should offset the cost of health care and work to stop the inflation of prices (1).
I believe that the United States should try to implement a consumer driven universal health care system. This can be done using the private sector insurers. Private sector insurers have the incentive of monetary benefits to provide decent care at lower cost than the United States has today (1).
Sources
1.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-foreign_health_affairs.htm
2.
http://www.aarp.org/research/press-center/presscurrentnews/health_care_reform_its_the_costs_stupid.html
3.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm%3Findex%3D8255%26type%3D1+cbo+health+care&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The national government has an enormous responsibility when it comes to providing healthcare. I am also one of the people that think assess to healthcare is a fundamental right, a right that 45 million Americans, a number that is growing , do not have. However I do not think it should be achieved through a cooperative government.
The current healthcare system in America is in complete shambles, and need some serious reformation. Many workers have an employment based healthcare coverage where their employers pay a percentage of their healthcare cost. Others have to pay for privatized healthcare coverage which can be very expensive. Because of the increase in healthcare premiums caused by cuts in the funding of medicaids and medicare, employers have shifted most of the payments onto their employees which has drained the pockets of many Americans. Those without work and cannot afford privatizes health insurance delay going to the hospital and settle for over-the-counter medication.
A universal healthcare would be the answer to the ever-growing healthcare cost. This type of healthcare means the government ensures that every citizen, regardless of their employment and financial status, receives healthcare coverage. Critics of this type of healthcare system argue that it will be too expensive and Americans will end up paying higher taxes. Compared to other industrialized countries, the U.S spends exceedingly on healthcare but has one of the lowest rate of health performances such as infant mortality and life expectancy. According to a recent poll by CBS, 64% Americans believe the government should provide healthcare for all. Critics argue that, Americans will be deprived of quality services by their physicians under the universal healthcare system. Studies have shown that people under a universal healthcare system has frequent visits than people in the U.S. It has also shown that, countries with universal healthcare system achieve equal or better services at a lower cost. Also private insurance companies can be used as a supplement for those who can afford it. Universal healthcare system would save the government 100-200 million annually, money which can be used in other arenas in the total budget. This is because, the government will not have to worry about competing to get the best healthcare providers and pay all types of workers like private healthcare companies do.
This type of healthcare system will ensure people of their fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
Health care has become an increasingly important issue. First of all, I would like to say that I believe that all people should be entitled to recieve health care no matter what their social status or economic status is. The United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn't guarantee its citizens this right (1). So, I think that the right of all citizens to recieve health care should be established. On this matter, the Health Protection Amendment of 2007 has been introduced to Congress (3). It states that, "Health care...is the right of all citizens of the United States and neccessary to ensure the strength of the nation" (3).
Many critics of universal health care (also called the single payer system) maintain that it would be too expensive to commence (1). In contrast, studies by the Congressional Budget Office show that a universal system would actually save 100-200 billion dollars a year (1). Also, states have taken part in similar studies to find that a single payer system will save large amounts of money for states as well (1).
Another problem mentioned is that universal health care would deprive individuals of neccessary services (1). This can be disproven because a universal system would allow citizens to have more doctor visits and hospital stays because everyone is entitled to the right to recieve care (1). Our current health system is mostly biased towards income and race. In an universal health care system, people of lower incomes and races can recieve the same care (1). No one will be denied care because of their inability to pay.
In the United States, the health care system is controlled by private industries. This means that insurance companies throughout the country fight for incredible amounts of customers. Citizens that don't have enough money are more likely to steer clear of this system because they don't know if their medical expenses will be accounted for (1).
Our health care system hasn't been operating to its full potential. In its current state, the system has been struggling economically. When Canada changed to a universal system of health care in 1971, its cost have increased at a lower rate than ours have, and we have a stronger economy than Canada (1). A single payer system has been proven to be more efficient and beneficial for all. Any citizen of the United States should be entitled to recieve health care, regardless of his or her socioeconomical status. At some point in life, everyone will need to seek medical attention. A universal system of health care reassures that all people can get what they need.
1. http://www.cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
2. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.42:
On the issue of healthcare, I believe that our current system of privatized healthcare is not efficient for those who have low incomes, but I believe that a universal system is not the right answer.
No one is completely sure what the United States would be like with a universal healthcare system, but other developed countries like Canada and Australia can give us somewhat of a parallel to what it would be like. A universal healthcare system may mean waiting lists for medical treatment and a limited choice of doctors for all citizens, no matter what their ability to pay for treatment(1). There's also the possiblity of a decreased enthusiasm for doctors to give the best quality treatment they can, since there is no competition. Of course, there's also the increase in taxes we'd have to pay to implement this system. Although 2 out of every 3 Americans support universal system, the support drops heavily with the addition of possible waiting lists and limited doctor choices (39% and 35%, respectively)(2).
This is why I believe that the government should not be heavily involved in the healthcare industry. It's a risk for the country to take that may not be a solution to our current problems. Although it will take care of the ability for poor people to receive medical treatment, the overall quality and convenience of the current system may be compromised.
(1)http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
(2)http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
The national government holds the principal responsibility of providing citizens and residents with healthcare, and it is better suited to reform the current healthcare predicament.
Healthcare within the private industry causes numerous American citizens to remain uninsured. According to the American Medical Student Association, keeping healthcare in the private sector will create numerous economic problems such as the “unnecessary use of the ER...lack of preventive care and adequate care of chronic diseases...strain on businesses...[and] loss of global competitiveness.” (5) Similarly, the Physicians for a National Health Program stated that “Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care” (2) The national government is capable of correcting the problems created by the private industry.
The federal government is able to provide healthcare on a national scale. Its resources would create healthcare efficiency and lower costs. The Physician’s Working Group endorsed a federal healthcare program by stating that “National health insurance could simultaneously address 2 [sic] pressing needs: providing all Americans with full drug coverage and containing drug costs” and “An NHI [national healthcare insurance] would save at least $200 billion annually.” (1) Federal healthcare can draw upon the resources of an entire nation, rather than limiting itself to a single state or private firm, to create the best possible healthcare available.
Most importantly, public opinion favors national healthcare. The majority of citizens of the United States, the actual healthcare recipients, place their trust in the national government to provide health. A NY Times/CBS poll claimed that “A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American.” (3) Majority support will avoid setbacks in implementing national healthcare. For example, there will be little interference from the Supreme Court in the execution of national healthcare. Government in America recounts that the Supreme Court tends to follow public opinion (4). The public’s support of national government clearly establishes it as the proper supplier of healthcare.
The national government is the only form of government with the adequate power and resources to effectively provide healthcare. As such, it holds complete responsibility to insure American citizens. Private industries no longer have the resources to insure all Americans, leading to economic problems. The federal government can lower costs and increase effectiveness, and the public will support these efforts. I favor a national healthcare solution.
1.http://www.pnhp.org/physiciansproposal/proposal/Physicians%20ProposalJAMA.pdf
2.http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
3.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9e06e7d71631f931a35750c0a9619c8b63
4.Government in America by Edwards et al
5.http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
Inevitably, the issue of healthcare for the American public is approached with the controversial topic of federalism. I believe that there should be a national standard for healthcare, but I think that implementation needs to remain under the jurisdiction of the state governments. I think that in order to preserve an individual’s medical rights the national government needs to be able to set a standard that applies to every american. (1) I feel somewhat inclined (Even if most people wouldn’t necessarily agree), that having different standards of health care in different states would be similar to denying full faith and credit to states’ rights. Respecting the medical services offered by each state is something that a citizen comes to expect and I think it would be beneficial to have a universal policy in the U.S. (2) In fact, many experts have talked about how if there is lack of a mandate, many people will still be denied health care (3). However, experience suggests that implementation of the plan requires the state governmnets to be involved.
I think that although private industry may have the funds more able to address health care problems, it all comes back to the powers trusted within the state and federal governments (3). So, the question is, would a national policy encroach on state jurisdiction? I don’t think so. I believe that as long as implementation is reserved to the discretion of the states that there will be a fair distribution of aid. A little side note: Hillary Clinton, I believe, spoke about federal funding through state and private organisations for the implementation of universal health care (3). So, there is an established plan of action in the federal government’s sphere of influence. It seems that it’s all going to come down to the next president of the United States, and the adherence to federal restrictions by the states.
Sources: (#4 was not used in the text of my post, but was referenced while I was researching…link may not work)
1. http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=uconn/ucwps
2. US Constitution
3. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/28/fight_over_health_care_for_all.html
4. http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2628238557&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T2628238562&cisb=22_T2628238561&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=244777&docNo=14
With the United States’ current health status, healthcare has become a major issue in the 2008 election and otherwise. Many have become divided on whether or not it is the governments, either from a state or national sense, or a private industry’s responsibility to provide adequate healthcare. It seems that at least some attachment should be on the government if it wishes to be most productive, as the returns on human capital (investments in human beings) are more important than physical capital. With this said, the healthier a person is, the more productive that individual will be which in turn would positively reflect our nation. Or perhaps you may see the government’s need to provide healthcare in the preamble stating, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America." Some perceive the utterance of promoting the general welfare as grounds for the founder’s support on this subject. Regardless of whether or not you believe it is the government’s responsibility to supply healthcare, one must see the current state of the United States and its health system. One in six or 43 million Americans are uninsured even though we (in 2005) spend $6,697 per capita, well above Canada who spent $3,326 per person. The United States also has the second highest rate for chronic conditions, given this fact it’s no surprise that according to health polls only 16% of Americans are happy with the healthcare status, prompting that the majority of our nation should advocate a change in out health system. This then brings about the question, should the state or national government provide healthcare? Although it would seem that states government would know their health status the best, I foresee the national government as a better means for offering care. This would even out unnecessary discrepancies among state programs (hindering flocking to a state to receive its benefits) and that representatives from those individual states could bring about the health needs demanded by their constituents. Though if a universal health plan is imposed, one could see a decrease in the quality of healthcare as it would not be a supply and demand matter, with this those who work in the health field may also see a decrease in pay. Along with this, perhaps skilled professionals would be less willing to work given their pay reduction, and perhaps individuals still wouldn’t approve of their system if they’re not able to choose a desired professional. On the other hand, this universal system would reach out to the other 43 million Americans currently without care, which depending on your view, may be worth the potential downsides. On the other end of the spectrum, some see this national health system as widening the scope of government and that individual industry as the only needed supplier of healthcare. Proponents of this industry run system belief that all one needs is the supply and demand of the market to operate our economy. For with this system, one may be able to choose from a broader number of professionals, those in the health field need not be worried for a decrease in earnings, and there would be plenty of incentive to offer excellent service and to develop ground breaking innovations. Although there are few variations on this system, some such as presidential candidate Rudi Giuliani, believes this can be achieved through tax cuts to promote “empowering patients and their doctors”. Although there are supporters for both sides of the argument, I believe there be a flaw in the current system and that this is a matter that needs to be dealt with. With that said, I would support a national healthcare system, although I also deem an economic approach to be in existence.
Edwards
O’Sullivan
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/03/a_free_market_cure_for_us_healthcare_system/
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ten_reasons_why_american_health_care_is_so_bad
A couple of weeks ago, I went out to lunch with my aunt and we sat across from a man from Canada who worked for a medical company. When my aunt asked him what he thought the U.S. should do about their healthacare system, he said that we should change to a system similar to that of Switzerland, because it would be an easier transition than switching to a Canadian-style healthcare system.
Still, as of 1998, the U.S. spent $4178 U.S. dollars per capita, while Switzerland spent only $2794 (1). This would still be a big jump for us to make. In Health Care System Indicators and Rankings of 1997-1999, Switzerland ranked second (US was the first) in responsiveness, and had a much lower infant mortality rate: 4.7, while the U.S. had the highest:7.2. Switzerland's life expectancy was also older by 2.5 years (72.5). If we follow Switzerland's example and make sure everyone has access to healthcare, then our healthcare system will be much more effective.
(1) http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
This sort of relates to my first post last term...
I think that the healthcare system we have right now is incredibly screwed up. The U.S. spends about $480 billion more on health care than other countries, because the system is so inefficient.
Uninsured people are the losers in the health care game. They are up to three times more likely to not see a doctor when they need one. They also have little access to primary care and some preventive care. Without insurance, a sudden injury or chronic disease can be catastrophic. People in this situation often go into debt because of medical bills.
I support some sort of universal health care system. Historically, governments have had to step in when the free market has not met the people's needs. For example, after the Great Depression, the need for agricultural subsidies was recognized. I think that we should move to a single payer health care system, with either the federal or the state government as the giver. A single payer system would save 1 to 2 billion dollars per year while covering everyone. Private corporations are the least efficient, spending 20-30% of premiums on administration and profits. By contrast, the Medicare program spends 3%.
The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care says, "For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs."
The private managed care system has failed us, and now we need to look for alternatives.
~This is Kendra
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/rp/healthcare/accounting_cost_healthcare.asp
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=221238
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
The role of a government is to protect its citizens, and to protect their basic dignities and their right to life. According to Maslow�s Hierarchy, which lists human needs in order of importance, the most basic needs are physiological needs, which include food, water, and physical safety. (1) If the government cannot promise that they will provide for a person if they become ill or injured, I believe the government is doing a grave injustice to its people. In light of this, I believe that the national government is best equipped to handle the current health care problems we are facing in the United States. Most citizens agree that our system of health care is flawed. According to a New York Times Poll presented at a forum on health care, 81% of United States citizens are either somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with health care. (2) However, many people argue that by instituting a government-run health care system, the overall quality of healthcare will decrease and it will be subject to the same inefficiencies as our federal government (3), but I do not think that everyone should or will be forced to get government-provided health care. To pacify free-market proponents, my solution would offer government-provided healthcare to people of low incomes (to be determined by government agencies, not by the people lacking healthcare expertise in Congress) without eliminating the private healthcare market. To eliminate the private market would be unfair, and I do not believe the government has a right to shut businesses down because the businesses are competing with the federal government. While sounding idealistic, this solution combines the universal coverage that �socialized medicine� proponents advocate and allows for continued quality in the healthcare market for people that are willing and able to pay for themselves in the private sector. The free marketplace allows for innovation by allowing a margin for profits to exist, and profits encourage entry into this free marketplace and stimulate innovation. (4) If a company has the possibility to make millions off a new antidepressant drug and it will only cost thousands to develop, they will enter the market because they stand to make a substantial profit. If the government was the sole provider, companies and entrepreneurs would not stand to make profit from medical endeavors, and new medicines or surgical techniques would not be developed as quickly. I offer a compromise solution that should appease both ends of the political spectrum.
-Silas Berkowitz
1. http://www.businessballs.com/images/maslow's_hierarchy_businessballs.jpg
2. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/public_opinion_on_he.php
3. http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~cundiff/InfantOECD.doc
4. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/sickness.html
I don’t understand this issue as well as some of the others discussed on this blog, but the health care system in the United States is clearly flawed. There is no one—well, no one with a conscience, at any rate—who would say that having nearly 50 million people uninsured is a good thing. Illness and injury is bad enough without the catastrophic health care bills that result from a lack of coverage. However, what should be done about the nation’s health care system is another matter entirely.
Switzerland and Britain have been held up as examples for government-provided health care, but this is not economically sound, nor is it particularly efficient. In the medicine industry, removing financial incentives for improvement would not be the wisest plan. In addition, what these nations have done is not entirely feasible for the United States. Both of them are geographically about the size of the average U.S. state, and neither has anywhere the over 300 million citizens that live in the United States. Given the already cumbersome nature of U.S. bureaucracy, I see no justification for putting the health of our nation into the same sea of red tape as any other service provided by the federal government.
This, too, may be an infeasible plan, but I think that some sort of income-based system would be a better alternative than completely nationalized health care. This could be integrated into whichever body takes care of welfare within the states, though I think the bar for income level would be raised for health care. For the most part, it is not the upper and middle classes who lack health care, so providing insurance to people in the general vicinity of the poverty line would take care of most of the problem. I believe that a state-based, need-based health care system would insure those who are unable to afford health care while still allowing for competition in the medical industry—basically, expand Medicaid and hand it over to the states. It isn’t necessary that the government cover everyone’s health care, just that of people who can’t afford it themselves.
Edwards
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/health/policy/30leavitt.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/
Right now citizens of the U.S. are recieving their health care from private institutions such as insurance through employers, medicare, and medicaid. This doesn't seem to be working since many people are denying healthcare, or recieving it illegally in unsafe places because they can't afford it, don't have a job the provides it, etc. Many employers are finding they can't afford to provide healthcare for their employees. Also, many people are finding the insurance they pay for does not cover the costs of many of the health problems they are faced with.
I think healthcare should be the responsiblity of the federal government. The United States is the only industrialized country that does not provide any form of guaranteed health care to its citizens. Based on our principles of freedom and justice in this country, shouldn't healthcare be a right and not a privelege available only to those who are wealthy enough to afford it? Despite the common misconception, 80 percent of people who are uninsured have jobs but are still unable to pay the premiums for healthcare because they are so expensive, or their employer doesn't have the financial means to offer health insurance.
Yes, providing universal healthcare will be costly, but in the long rung the benefits outweigh the costs. If healthcare isn't provided, in the future there will be more people retiring earlier because health problems are causing them to not be able to work, children will become developmentally slower, emergency departments will become less accessable, local economies will go down in areas where many are uninsured, and more and more people will get sick since people who don't have insurance won't be recieving healthcare and will be spreading illness. If universal healthcare is provided, the costs of other programs like Social Security, Disability insurance, Medicare and the criminal justice system will go down.
In the long run, I beliieve universal health care is the best option for improving our nation's healthcare and quality of life.
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
"Thousands of Americans lose their health insurance every day. Health care costs continue to spiral out of control. No one is secure," said an American Medical Student Assn (2). The current issue of heath care is one that will not be easily fixed or solved. Adding on to the problem of affordibility, quality and cycle time current health care programs are facing, there is also the problem of who should be fixing the issue. The National or State governments? Or should the Private Industry step in and get it done? The problem is not a new one in the US but rather an ongoing issue. Most recently the health care industry over went some changes in the 90's that were proven effective for some time in the result of a decline in cost until more recently when the rate of increase has once again began to rise (1). Governments, both state and nationally, are looking to either cut benefits all together or use funds from other programs to meet the health care commitments they are made in the past. Businesses are increasing their own costs in order to keep up with global competative pressures. This creates the problem of rising premiums causing many Americans to be without any sort of health care(1). So who's problem is this? According to ISSSP the solution to this problem will be a whole reform to the current health care system instead of solving bits and pieces of the program (1). Therefore it should be a national government issue needing to be addressed soon. We are currently the only western industrialized nation that fails to provide universal coverage and is minimally regulated by private insurance companies (2). If the US is the only one not providing health care for all of its citizens, why doesn't our government attempt to make a solution out of our national problem by following by example? The private industry is still in control of health care at the moment and as many people know, privately owned companies are looking out for themselves, not the public when they underwrite these premiums, which continue to rise. I believe universal health care is the only way to go, it will be government regulated, everyone will be able to qualify for it, and hey we are already in huge debt as a country so we should not be worried about money at this point but rather worried about the state of the citizens in our country. Who better to regulate health care than the US government, they for the most part will make a fair program without having to worry about profiting like the private industry.
Michelle Howard
(1) http://www.isssp.com/?page=HealthForum
(2) http://americanhealthcarereform.org/
I think that national healthcare should be a standard in the United States. The fact that 47 million people in the United States are without health insurance is unacceptable (SEIU). I think that the government should provide adequate healthcare for all emergencies, operations, etc. I don’t believe that cosmetic surgery should be provided through the government, but all necessary and beneficial operations should be covered through national healthcare. I think that health care reform would only work at the national level because if states decided to provide healthcare it could get really messy. Full faith and credit laws would be questioned; the taxation used by states would be questioned, etc. The most prominent issue which is keeping us from reforming our health system is the level of fiscal change that would need to take place. Elites and politicians are divided on the issue, and it would cost so much money to run a new program and to redo the hospital system that the costs would be overwhelming for a period of time (LA times). I think that only the national government has the power to truly make changes in our flawed health system. I favor a slow implementation of national healthcare through legislation and the changing of power.
Something must be seriously wrong at the point where the United States is the only developed nation without healthcare. With so many resources at its disposal, the question is asked: to what degree is the federal government responsible for providing healthcare to its citizens.
The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that to have any of those, healthcare is the basic building block. One cannot have life when they cannot pay for a life-saving surgery. With a physically healthy nation, not only does it guarantee those liberties, it is also beneficial to the economy. It only takes basic economic knowledge to realize that productivity is the key wealth generator.
I think that the healthcare system should be administered by the state because they know their population demographics much better than the national government. However, I think this requires cooperative federalism because the national government can provide the block grants to make it possible.
Critics of a universal healthcare system always claim that it will lead to an unmotivated work force of health providers. They claim that the relationship between the doctor and his patients would also be put in jeopardy. First of all, the this lack of privacy should not hinder 50 million Americans from access to healthcare. Next, this is a non-unique argument. Insurance companies don't give patients an
unlimited choice of doctors. This 'choice' will not be taken away if the government administers healthcare. Instead of having the doctors file for insurance companies, they can do it for the government. They can hold on to their status quo level of income without any problem.
So basically, universal healthcare can only be a win-win situation <3
I agree with all of the other posters that have stated that there are enormous problems with our current system, including rising costs and the fact over 40 million Americans that continue to lack coverage (1). According to a Nov 2007 Gallup poll, 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the current healthcare system (2). And 61% believe that the federal government is responsible for insuring that all Americans receive coverage (2).
I think that the most efficient way to solve the healthcare problem is to place the problem mostly in the hands of the state governments; I think that a federal healthcare system would be too unwieldy to work as well as a series of state systems, due to the sheer size of the US in comparison to many countries with a universal healthcare system, and would require undue amounts of bureaucracy to maintain.
Reforms on the state level are easier to implement, face fewer obstacles, and result in higher rates of success than national initiatives for reform (3). States can act as "reform laboratories" to determine the workability of different solutions, and determine which solution is most effective, without catastrophic consequences in the instance of a misstep. The reform process has already begun at the state level, due to frustration regarding the federal government's inability to articulate a solution to the problems that healthcare faces (3). One particular example is Illinois' All Kids plan, which provides health insurance to every child in IL. In addition, Illinois created a task force to propose a plan for a universal health care system for all IL adults (3). The success of these programs may be a gauge for the future of other programs created by other states and possibly at the national level also.
I do think that the federal government should play a role in healthcare; possibly to set standards of what minimum benefits are required to be provided to all citizens, for example. Without a system like that in place, there is the potential for vast inequities in healthcare for between states. I also think that federal government should act as a safety net in an instance where an implemented system fails, and provide the support to get the state healthcare system running again, this time with a more effective solution.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-10-19-health-poll_x.htm
(2) http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
(3) http://www.amsa.org/tnp/articles/article.cfx?id=32
Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University sees health care swallowing up 28 % of GDP by 2030. Healthcare is certainly a priority in the upcoming election, as well as far beyond that. I think it is the national government’s responsibility to ensure basic healthcare for all. Health (ie life) is a basic right that all people are entitled to. No one should just die from an easily curable disease. But, at the same time, I do not think that the national government should have to give full healthcare to all. Rather, they should just take care of the very poorest people who have no other options.
For the rest of us, I favor a free market system, because this stays true to our capitalist background. Free markets ensure that an equilibrium is reached between suppliers and consumers. Markets motivate people with the strongest incentive: money. People always work to better their financial situations, and the same is true for healthcare companies. A free market would make health care providers try for the most profitable, economic solutions to problems that arise. Of course, some regulation is necessary. Government regulation makes sure that markets run efficiently. This is where I am conflicted. I do not believe that it is the burden of the well-off to carry the lower class that can’t afford healthcare. Many of them have worked hard to get in their positions, and we surely can not construct moral mandates to make them feel obligated to give their money to politicians to disburse to the unprivileged. However, an equal society is much more desirable than a hierarchical one. If money must be taken from the upper class with increased taxes, then that must be done. The health of our country is an important factor of our standard of life (if not our most important one) and creating a stable system is to the benefit of all. For our country to prosper, we need to cover the 40 million people who are without insurance. Rather than tax the wealthy, a better method to raise funds would be to eliminate government waste, but this seems far too idealistic and impractical. If we could fix some of the major issues where we are bleeding money (wars, Social Security, etc), we could channel that money into universal healthcare plans, while still maintaining a free market system for those who can afford it.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/whatswrongwithushealthcare.php
Employers do not always promise insurance to their employees, so it falls on the governments, both state and federal, to provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it. Many Americans, over fifty percent, are no satisfied with the current state of healthcare in the nation(1). There are many people in the country who have, or know someone who has turned down medical aid due to the price of it(1).
Even if employees are offered insurance, many will not be able to afford their premiums, which have risen 143 percent since 2000 (2). The number of excess deaths of uninsured people exceeds is roughly 18,000 people(2).
I believe taht even though it is the responsibility of the government, they are not currently best suited to deal with the problem. The government is in a very large debt and therefore would need to significantly raise taxes in order to cover everyone, thus hurting the public in the long-run. I believe that private industry is best suited to cover the problem because they, while still charging people for insurance, will allow the government to spend their tax income on other things that cannot be safely controlled by the private sector, such as defense of the country.
(1)http://abcnews.go.com/sections/
living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
(2)http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Forty-four million Americans amble through their lives each day in fear of being struck down by ailment, for they do not have health insurance (1). It goes without saying that the U.S. is in it for business. An average physician makes over $152,000 annually on making their fellow citizens healthier, and that number commonly fluctuates up depending on the field of medicine (2). That average salary is up to five times higher than nations with better life expectancy and mortality rate statistics (1). Yes, America has some of the best medical technology in the world. Yes, the physicians paid these generous salaries are completely capable in doing their jobs. But when a middle-class citizen with three kids in college and a mortgage needs one of those high-end, $10,000 procedures to watch her children graduate, America’s advanced knowledge in medicine becomes irrelevant because she can’t afford the luxury.
The truth is that more profit can come from cure than prevention, a fact that a majority of entrepreneurs realize. Drug companies especially are guilty as charged. The most ridiculous marketing escapade I’ve ever come across in medicine involved a cervical cancer vaccination. It claimed that boys should receive the vaccination as well as girls because if they engage in oral sex with a girl carrying the HPV virus, they are at risk of getting throat cancer (3). This is a blatantly absurd idea with no real credible scientific evidence to back it up. What these companies do is invent problems for the American public to fear, and then market “solutions” to calm them down. Maybe I’m just cynical, and all of these schemes may turn out to be substantial in the end, but for now, I can’t allow myself to buy in. Healthcare shouldn't be an opportunity for companies to make a buck off someone else's problems.
A single-payer system would break the barriers of poverty, profit, and bias against those who actually are in need to the care they’re being denied. First, a socialized system takes care of finances of its users. Single-payer healthcare systems are not free; they’re just less expensive for the consumers than the healthcare system we’re running today. Employers still pay health insurance, but they pay less, leaving more money going home on employee paychecks. Small income taxes are levied to pay for the system, but prescription drugs are cheaper, and no huge deductibles are placed on patients who get really sick. The finances for such a system are debatable, but the main theory would be that all of the money currently being made by the hotshot companies would go to the single-payer (4). Insurance companies in America’s healthcare system are notorious for denying coverage to applicants, as well. Insurance companies find means to deny applicants on the grounds of pre-existing conditions and other indicators of illness. It is obvious that the reason people apply for health insurance is because they are sick; these companies shouldn’t act so surprised, and definitely shouldn’t deny already sick applicants the ability to get better. A socialized system does not reject anyone for health insurance coverage.
Any healthcare system chosen is automatically subject to criticism, but considering the astronomic and rising costs of the current system, a single-payer health insurance system seems the most ideal.
(1)http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
(2)http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html
(3)http://www.newstarget.com/021999.html
(4)http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/what.php
Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States(1). Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage(1). Everyday more and more Americans agree that the federal government is responsible for providing universal healthcare to all citizens and the rising costs of health care reach deeper into American’s pockets every year.
(2)In a recent gallop poll, November 11-14, people were asked “Thinking again about health care in the country as a whole: Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in this country?" 81% responded that they were dissatisfied. They were also asked “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?", and 64% said that it is the responsibility of the federal government. With the majority of people wishing to reform the healthcare system, the federal government should be listening to it’s people’s wishes and making changes to the current system.
The federal government should do their part in providing universal healthcare in the interest of the people rather than the market. Universal healthcare will benefit all citizens who have been effected by the rising costs of health insurance. (3) 43.0 million Americans are without health insurance, the most common reason for lacking health insurance is being poor. (3)Healthcare costs have skyrocketed since the 1970s, from $1313 per person then, to $5449 in 2002 and spending almost 14% of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on health services. These rising costs are not possible for all Americans to cover and in a country as developed as the U.S., I believe that it is the governments’ job to ensure all it’s citizen’s health and safety.
(4)The state of California has already proposed a universal healthcare system, requiring health insurance and providing it for those who for any reason cannot afford it. I believe that this is just the beginning and the country will work it’s way to universal healthcare available to everyone.
(1) http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848
(2) www.pollingreport.com
(3) Edwards, Government in America
(4) http://www.healthcare.com/peoples-voice/universal-healthcare-in-california/
It is obvious that healthcare is an important debate in today’s society- and especially will be in the upcoming presidential election. I think that the government needs to be more involved with making sure that more of the country is getting healthcare. The biggest problem with our country’s healthcare system is that you need a job to have healthcare, which many people in our country don’t or cannot get. Those who do have jobs are still not guaranteed health insurance because employers are not required to give it to all of their employees. Those totally without jobs have to get private insurance- which they most likely cannot afford, pay for it themselves- which, depending on the situation, probably cannot afford or just go with out (1). I see this as one of the biggest problems with our healthcare system. This problem is also growing- the number of people without health insurance has gone from 39.8 million to 43.6 from 2000 to 2002 (1).
I think, ideally, the government would be able to deal with this problem and have a greater impact on the amount of people who get covered and receive any sort of health insurance. Since we don’t have a very centralized sort of healthcare system, many people fall through the cracks and don’t have any sort of health insurance. I think that our healthcare system needs to be reformed and be state based. My belief health insurance should be more of a right than a privilege, so more people won’t have to worry if their sick kids will be able to be helped or not.
(1) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june04/uninsured_1-19.html
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2006-12-18-health-pols-usat_x.htm
Liana B's post:
The issue of healthcare is an ever-debated and an important issue. Some say that the national government should create a Universal Healthcare system and therefore ensure that all Americans have access to medical care. Creating a Universal Healthcare system is a complex idea. Some would argue that as being one of the richest nations in the world, all or our citizens should have access to healthcare. Currently, over 40 million people are uninsured and healthcare is becoming increasingly less affordable for individuals and employers (2). Critics say we should not enact a universal healthcare system. A Universal Healthcare system they argue only would increase taxes and reduce competition, motives, and lead to a more expensive, ineffective system (1).
Others argue healthcare is a matter of safety and therefore should be left up to each individual state how healthcare should be administered. I do not think that such a critical issue should be left up to the states. A good reason for leaving jurisdiction to the states is if different regions of the country have different needs—this issue does not qualify because everyone needs healthcare.
I think the most effective way to approach this issue is on a national level so that our healthcare system in its entirety is consistent. With a universal system we could: develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors, medical professionals can concentrate on helping their patients instead of on insurance procedures, and free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and confront problems early when treatment is still light (1). To those that argue that a universal system will only increase taxes and make healthy people pay for the obese and smokers in our country I say that this is a valid argument, and I view at as a downside of such a system. But like most issues, there are negative points. Any system that gives more government assistance to Americans simultaneously takes a little more out of the pockets of its citizens. I believe if it is economically feasible to give healthcare to every sick child and elderly adult in America, then it should be put into effect.
(1) www.balancedpolitics.org
(1) 2.http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhcupdates.cfm
The U.S health care system is flawed. No matter what side of the issue a person approaches from, they can agree that something needs to be done. "What's striking is that we are clearly a world leader in how much we spend on health care" (1). The United States spends the most out of any country per person on health care. Yet by some reports it has a very low return rate in terms of quality health care (2). According to statistics, Americans are the most likely to pay 1,000 dollars out of their own pockets when compared to citizens from Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Brittan and Canada (1). That same study found that 34% of Americans reported getting the wrong medication or dosage and had mistakes in test results, this percent was higher by more than ten percent when compared to the other countries (1). Roughly half of bankruptcies filed in a year are attributed to medical costs (2). Though Americans are reported to be the most likely to skip a medical procedure because of cost.
Fifty million Americans are reported to be without healthcare (2). Critics claim that it is really only eight million because some people prefer to cover their own costs (2). Eight million is still a very high number of people without health care. The General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Committee have both recognized that other proposed healthcare systems would cost the U.S. far less money. The single-payer system is projected to save billions if enacted (2). I’m not so convinced a universal system would be the best option for the U.S. nor am I sure that a privatized system would work. I don’t think it’s that simple. A universal system would incur problems. Many countries that were using the Universal System have ditched or are reconstructing the system (2). So what do we do? Why not act like Americans and check and balance everything? I don’t think we can rely on either government or ourselves completely. There has to be balance. One plan for everyone that the government distributes like food rations is not going to work. Everyone is different. Some people prefer to pay for themselves in exchange for choice of services. Some people like having the government as a distributor. There needs to be a healthy, clearly defined procedure that ensures expediency and efficiency as much as possible. I would love to say that the government should stay out of the healthcare business but I can’t. There are so many people out there who struggle to make ends meet as is without having medical bills on top of it.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301143.html
2. http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1498
3.http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2007/11/14/Columns/Boris.Ryvkin.09.No.To.Universal.Health.Care-3099863.shtml
Alyssa Vongries
Well i will start of with my opinon. I believe that having affordable healthcare avaliable to all its citizen is extremly imperative. I think we should have a system like that in canada:" Canada's health care system is a group of socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens. It is publicly funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guidelines set by the federal government.
Under the health care system, individual citizens are provided preventative care and medical treatments from primary care physicians as well as access to hospitals, dental surgery and additional medical services. With a few exceptions, all citizens qualify for health coverage regardless of medical history, personal income, or standard of living." (canadian heatlhcare)
They have figured out a system that works which benefits all of its citizens. It also has an impact on thier economy in a good way "Approximately 9.5% of Canada's gross domestic product is spent on health care. In comparison, the United States spends close to 14% of its GDP on health care." (canadian health care). As you can see they spend less % of thier GDP on healthcare than we do and not all of our citizens are able to get it. if we got a coverage to all it would help our economy.
also just how canada does it i believe it should be done by state but have guidelines set by the national government because each state varies on what it needs more than others.
I support this solution because that way everyone will be able to get cared for when needed and wouldnt have to worry about the exspensive costs if they didnt have insurance.
forgot my source
Canadian-healthcare.org
I believe that healthcare is something the government should give to all people. In the United States healthcare is something that is left to the individual through the employer or can be obtained through private companies. States end up paying for medical care of many people that can not afford to pay the premiums for healthcare.
Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, offer a centralized healthcare system that is run by the government. This way all the citizens are covered and there are no worries that main/common healthcare will not be provided. Many would say that with so many illegal immigrants there will be high prices to pay, but there costs are all ready covered since emergency rooms treat all people that come in even if they can’t foot the bills. If the government would cover all healthcare it would be about the same cost as it is now since there are plenty of people who live without healthcare, but still need and deserve medical care.
Responding to Molly
I very much agree with you that healthcare is a huge item that needs to make it to the policy agenda. I also agree that without state and national help there is no way that all US citizens will have healthcare. This is partly due to high premiums no benefits through work and not having a job. So in conclusion I agree that the government needs to step up and take care of the people living in the US.
To Lauren
I disagree with your statement that the government has no responsibility to provide healthcare to the citizens of the United States. You said you were in favor of privatized healthcare because it makes patients search for the best doctor and allows for competitive care. I think the most important thing is that everyone is being taken care of and not avoiding the doctor out of fear of the huge bill that will come with it (1). After all, 23% of people asked by ABC News said that they have put off medical treatment because of the cost (2).
Currently 43 million people in the US are without health care, and that number is increasing (2). According to an Emory University School of Medicine professor, “I believe we are reaching the point where the system is unsustainable” (3). Though taxes would be higher, nearly 7 in 10 people “go so far as to say they would be willing to pay more in federal taxes to assure that every American citizen has healthcare coverage” (3). Anyway, as you said, taxes would be most increased for the upper class, who are the ones who can afford to pay.
I believe it is the government’s responsibility to look out for all of its citizens, not just those with jobs or money.
To Libby:
I agree with your root point that the federal government should make sure that everyone has reasonable healthcare. For a developed country like us, healthcare does indeed seem like a necessity. However, I am not sure that the process that you prescribe would yield the best results. You imply that it is either a people-friendly or business-friendly approach. If our country ignored business needs, that would hurt everyone. Wages would probably get cut as healthcare mandates were imposed. I think that through a free market approach we can better the economy, the healthcare industry, and consumer’s health. Rudy Giuliani proposes an interesting approach, and while I do not agree with his other stances, his healthcare stance seems pragmatic and promising. He wants to cut taxes on the healthcare industry, thus enticing more firms to enter the market (1). This increased competition would lower overall healthcare costs. On top of that, he wants to give more benefits to patients who choose their own healthcare provider, rather than the one that their employer gives them (1). This would make the healthcare market more responsive to individual needs. He says that healthcare insurance would become more like auto insurance: you would buy a plan that meets your basic needs and then buy extra coverage as you see fit. Any money that a consumer saves through this plan can be redirected into a tax-free healthcare savings account (1). Giuliani thinks that all of these actions will maintain our capitalist tradition, while improving everyone’s situations. I do think that this will work better than government mandates. In the end, however, it is our federal government’s responsibility to enact change. They will need to oversee Giuliani’s policies as well as a government mandate policy. Time will tell which course of action is correct.
1 - http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/03/ a_free_market_cure_for_us_healthcare_system/
In response to Megan Brown:
I obviously agree with your post on turning our current health care system from everyone-for-themselves to universal coverage. You had some really good points on how the current private health care providers are only looking out for their benefit and profit when it comes to coverage charges instead of affordability for their consumers. I think that universal health care would what our country is meant to do for its citizens. Universal health care refers to the idea that every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care (1). Key word ACCESS. The equal ability to have it, not level out the playing field and make one price, but give everyone an equal chance at health care. These people who aren't able to obtain coverage are not the poorest in the country but rather the hard working Americans who do not qualify for Medicaid (a government program) but can not also afford private insurance (2). Why should they be punished for not being poor enough? Above all, these people deserve health care coverage and if they are unable to attain it independently, then the government should recognize their issue and provide for them. Universal health care would benefit the thousands of people who loose their health coverage everyday due to falling into this income gap. It's where the country needs to move onto in the future instead of ignoring this growing problem.
(1)http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhcres.cfm
(2) http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
Michelle Howard
I have actually struggled to figure out my personal stance on health care in the past. On one hand, many people are not covered, while they should be. On the other hand, I am against universal health care because I feel that the overall quality of health care will go down if it is completely government controlled. When I think with only my heart I think about all the people living in poverty that are in need of some help for healthcare, or I think about all the senior citizens that will benefit substantially from cheaper drug prices. When I think with only my brain, I see the free market for drugs disappearing. With lower drug prices there is no incentive for innovation, so less people will be working on creating newer drugs, and even possibly finding cures for “untreatable” diseases. America is currently one of the top places in the world for creating innovative drugs. What is my end solution? Like every great solution in America, it is a compromise.
I believe healthcare is an issue for the national government to deal with. Americans have the right to be protected and defended by their government. Therefore I believe it is the government’s job to protect and defend Americans from illness and disease. I think the government should make a less major form of universal healthcare. Rather than fully paying for the citizens’ healthcare through taxes I believe they should raise taxes enough to pay/force healthcare providers to lower their prices a certain amount so that healthcare is much more affordable. Right now I feel healthcare is too expensive for many Americans to be able to afford, and it is a necessity for some people’s survival. However, Americans will not have to go through the bummers of universal healthcare. People will still be able to pick their own doctors, and choose somebody who charges in their price range. Our drug inventers will not suffer as much and will still be hard at work. Life will be smoother, and people on both ends of the spectrum should be at least somewhat happy with it.
1. Edwards
2. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0404h.asp
So I was looking on here for my original healthcare post so I could retrace my steps while making an argument. I could not find it. I don't know if I'm blind, or if I just failed miserably to post before, but luckily I saved the file, so either way I'm posting my healthcare post again. If it's on here twice, I guess that means the rest of you are TREATED to my opinion two times.
From Liz:
Blog Post 12/3
I believe that health care is a fundamental right and should be provided by the government.
Currently, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world without a universal health care system. President Clinton proposed one during his time in office, but it was never approved. Many people believe that the United States already has the best health care system available. However, the United States actually ranks rather poorly compared to other nations with universal health care.
Another argument is that universal health care would be too expensive. This is also not entirely true. A single payer universal health care system would lower administrative costs a great deal. The United States pays 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems.
The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system, access would be granted to everyone. There would be no lines like in other countries with universal health care due to the oversupply in our providers. Plus, the United States would be more willing and able to spend on health care than other industrialized nations.
Overall, the good outweighs the bad in the case of universal health care. Especially considering the bad is mostly myth.
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
Post a Comment