Introduction
It is essential for the govt of the U.S. to provide its citizens with free and quality health care services. Also, it will preclude medical bankruptcies in the whole country; it will serve as a power reduction element, the citizens will have a sense of contentment, and once the citizens have the feeling of protection about medical and financial situations, it will leave a positive impact on their mental wellbeing. However, in the world of developed countries, the U.S. is the only country that doesn’t deliver publicly funded healthcare facilities to all of its citizens. Further, the insurance companies in the United States are more profit-oriented rather than providing quality health services (Drummond et al.). This case does not follow the United States’s objectives and priorities. Therefore, the government should focus on bringing major reforms in the healthcare sector to provide its citizens with free healthcare facilities, which are the basic rights of the citizens of the United States.
Health care should not only be the privilege of an elite class. In this regard, the most usual narrative given in opposition to providing Universal healthcare coverage (UHC) free health services is that it’ll overburden the government financially. Subsequently, the taxpayers will have to pay more costs. For this purpose, the citizens of the U.S. have to closely examine how much the cost would be and what amount would be too much to take up the initiative of free healthcare units across the country (Sridhar 499). The citizens who are already insured end up paying hefty amounts, and those without coverage are charged with an immeasurable amount (Betancourt et al.). So, there is uncertainty between publicly funded and insurance premium costs.
People with low incomes should have provisions to pay fewer amounts for their current premiums. UHC is a quality service, and even if it costs a bit more, the citizens of the United States will have to decide what sort of environment they would like to live in and what their priorities are. What is their priority for the next generations? A system that has deep roots in capitalism and which outshines individualism, under such circumstances, the concept of care is marginalized. Now, this is the time for U.S. citizens to realize the significance of free healthcare without taking into account the costs. Universal health care (UHS) is a practice that yields the core values of care for people. In this regard, awareness campaigns should be run so to make people realize the significance of UHC and to make basic reforms in the infrastructure of healthcare.
Another mindset that stands against UHC in the United States is that other national healthcare systems, such as that of Canada, England, and France, are facing serious problems or are almost bankrupt. Critics of UHC also come up with the arguments that the patients in these counties have to wait long to receive treatment, and even for a basic level of health care, they are on long waiting lists, which causes frustration in the patients, especially critiques of this system quote the example of England that NHS is under heavy load of patients, often their walk-in centers are fully occupied, and as a result, people go through long waiting times for their turns. This deficit is on the rise on a yearly basis.
This claim is a mixture of truth and exaggerated stories. Americans need to evaluate the situation from their perspective. Although it is true that patients have to wait long to receive treatment from doctors in countries where UHC is in place, overall, the situation is no different in the United States as people have to wait long to see the doctor to avoid the hassle people have to make one or two weeks advanced appointments only to make sure that they don’t have to wait too long outside doctor’s room. However, serious injuries or diseases of a critical nature are always treated on priority abroad, almost the same as the situation in the U.S.
In this scenario, the cost causes the main difference. There is a situation of uncertainty in the United States concerning costs; the condition is the same for healthcare premium policyholders. On a daily basis, there is an increase in the cases of cancer patients. For this purpose, choices are insufficient for patients as they are only left with the option of experimental treatment provided by a medical insurance company, which has been uncovered. As there is no coverage, patients are bound to pay for the treatment out of their pocket, which is also an extra burden for people in the medium- and low-income categories. Also, the patient can opt for less effective and relatively cheap treatment, but some diseases require the most effective treatment, and patients can’t risk it. The situation can be worse for poor people as they can choose no treatment, which, of course, could be lethal for them. Although all Americans can be trapped in an unwanted situation someday, many still opt to have financial risk rather than putting their health and financial welfare at stake.
U.S. citizens should urge their representatives to form UHC to have guaranteed and affordable coverage. The opponents will continue opposing the concept of UHC, but the implementation of UHC will save many lives. Does the question arise as to why there was an acceptance of public education and no public health care? The Americans will have to think about society and not from an individual perspective. The way citizens think about education is the same way they should consider health. In most cases, health comes earlier than education.
Comparative Analysis
In the USA, public and private contributions are 45% and 55%, respectively (Squires et al.). The sources of funding for the UK and Germany are taxes. In Germany, that is designated for health services, whereas, in the UK, revenue collected through taxes covers other expenditures as well.
Regarding the economy, a health system is classed as efficient if it uses fewer resources and delivers the optimum level of results. On the other hand, it is called inefficient when too many resources are wasted to achieve high levels of health. The US health system is considered to be inefficient in comparison with the UK NHS. In both of the systems, a lot of resources are wasted, and authorities carry out investigations without substantial medical grounds. The healthcare issue is the general election slogan of every political party, which indeed indicates that society needs a quality healthcare service.
According to Michael Moore’s documentary “Where to Invade Next,” until recently, America and Finland had the same education policies. Whereas, recently, “Finland is almost at the top of the ranking in terms of best-educated students in the world (Moore).” The way Finland has attained a level of education likewise, America can start bringing reforms in the health sector by adopting a universal healthcare system (UHS). The ACA (Affordable Care Act) was introduced in 2010, which was an achievement of Obama’s presidency. The main aim of this act was to attain somehow universal access to healthcare with an enhanced level of quality (Geyman 217). Still, the U.S. is struggling to attain Universal healthcare, as the interventions made are not sufficient.
Conclusion
The publicly funded healthcare system is considered favorable for society as a whole. While comparing the health situation of the U.S. with that of other countries, there is a need for a universal healthcare system (UHS) in the country for improved health services and peace of mind for the citizens. The implementation of UHS highly depends upon how the citizens of the U.S. prioritize health. For this purpose, people need to develop their approach in the context of society, not from their personal perspective. Health care should be dealt with the same way education is considered. The number of patients is increasing in the country. Therefore, sophisticated and structured healthcare services are in higher demand than before. However, critiques present the viewpoint that this system will increase the overall expenses of government and the countries in which UHS is practiced, they are facing significant problems, and patients have to suffer long waiting time, they are right to some extent, but with the little careful approach, this issue can be resolved. The waiting times can be reduced, and services can be made smooth for citizens. The less privileged class should be given priority, whereas the wealthy can opt to pay full charges for the cure. So, reforms of the primary structural levels are needed at the fundamental healthcare level as this is the service that people need more. The people with less income should pay less for the insurance premiums.
Recommendations
A well-structured and highly efficient healthcare system is not a simple facility to provide, and one of the challenging things for hospitals and medical care units is proper funding. There are three primary sources of funding these days: private, insurance, and state. In this regard, many people are of the opinion that government should bear the full cost of healthcare and provide free medical care to all of the citizens of the country. The problem here is that the medical equipment for most of the medical care is highly expensive, which is why if the government starts providing care free of cost, it’ll have to bear a lot of expenses. For this purpose, the government should prioritize and subsidize healthcare services for the less privileged classes and children (Young et al.).
In this regard, the government should ensure the full payment of treatment from wealthy people of the society. The subsidies should be given according to the categories of income. A proper system of check and balance system should be deployed to ensure the smooth working of insurance companies. The government should also work to improve the necessary infrastructure for primary health care, as many citizens complain about the waiting time. Also, emphasis should be placed on the critical types of diseases as some diseases are more threatening to society. Therefore, resources should be allocated to provide a proper cure for that disease.
Works Cited
Betancourt, Joseph R., et al. “Defining cultural competence: a practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care.” Public health reports (2016).
Drummond, Michael F., et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, 2015.
Folland, Sherman, Allen Charles Goodman, and Miron Stano. The Economics of Health and Health Care: Pearson International Edition. Routledge, 2016.
Geyman, John P. “A five-year assessment of the Affordable Care Act: Market forces still trump the common good in US health care.” International Journal of Health Services 45.2 (2015): 209-225.
Moore, Michael. Where to invade next. Aec, 2016.
Squires, David, and Chloe Anderson. “US health care from a global perspective: spending, use of services, prices, and health in 13 countries.” The Commonwealth Fund 15 (2015): 1-16.
Sridhar, Devi, et al. “Universal health coverage and the right to health: from legal principle to post-2015 indicators.” International journal of health services 45.3 (2015): 495-506.
Young, Kristina M., and Philip J. Kroth. Sultz & Young’s Health Care USA. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2017.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
