Healthcare Reform : Socialized Medicine?

Insurers don’t limit benefits and doctor networks, and patient costs are replaced by taxes in a single-payer system. A single-payer would also equalize health care quality since we would all share the plan with the same benefits, which is not present under the ACA. A single-payer plan would be a way to ensure universal health coverage while containing costs. In addition to the dramatic reduction in administrative costs, single payer plans offer other openings for managing costs. For example, it would allow the U.S. government to negotiate for lower costs with providers like doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical

Universal healthcare should be available to everyone in the United States, and the best system would be a Canadian-style, single-payer form of national health insurance rather than Obama Care or reliance on private health insurance. Health care is a basic human right, and from an ethical viewpoint, the system in the United States is the most unjust and unequal in the Western world and paradoxically the most expensive as well. Although national health insurance was first proposed as early as 1912, and again during the New Deal and Fair Deal in the 1930s and 1940s, it has always been blocked by powerful corporate interests that have far too much influence on politics and public opinion. Even worse, the injustice of the present system is borne most heavily by the poor, working class, and members of minority groups who lack health care coverage at work and cannot afford private insurance. North of the border, Canada has a far better model for health care and one that most U.S. reformers have demanded since the 1940s. Medicare has been a very popular public service in Canada since it was first passed in 1966, and provides universal health care paid for out of general tax revenue. In the U.S., Medicare covers only those over age 65, but it should be modified into a Medicare for all system, especially if the Supreme Court overturns Obama Care this year.

With rising healthcare costs being distributed predominantly on workers or their companies, the economic responsibility is placed on the very people who need it the least: the job creators. If the economic responsibility of healthcare costs was shifted to the government, the private sector job creators could have more revenue to stimulate the economy with additional jobs, better wages, and improved worker benefits. The best way to shift this cost obligation is via a single-payer healthcare system. A single-payer would make sure all citizens would be covered for all medical services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug, and medical supply costs.

Universal health care comes at no cost at all, but cost is a barrier for some under the Affordable Care Act. Universal healthcare is funded through taxes, in contrast, the “U.S. has a multi-tiered system(Obamacare vs. Canada).” This multi-tiered system puts a lot of potential for direct cost to the consumer. While some of the funding is derived from taxes, other funds come from premiums, and out-of-pocket payments(Overview). Premiums and out-of-pocket payments are both provided from the consumer and are paid to private insurers and medicare providers respectively. The details revolving around these payment types have been altered by the Affordable Care

Around the world, people often look at the United States for the boundless opportunities afforded to its citizens. However, one thing most of them cannot wrap their heads around is the idea that a person can accrue crippling debt should they become sick. Debate still continues on whether or not single payer healthcare is a viable option for the United States. In the current political climate, arguments for either side turn into a division between ideologies or parties rather than an objective comparison of the options. It is important to discover which system might be best suited, or at the very least, the advantages and disadvantages of each. Much of the data shows that a single payer option could potentially save money and allow more Americans access to healthcare, but do these anticipated advantages outweigh the costs?

The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the potential pros and cons of establishing united healthcare plans in America, and countries across the world. This paper will use preexisting research, and scholarly journals to incorporate availability, financial necessity, governmental involvement, and personal risk associated with a national healthcare plan. What is the potential risk of losing privatized healthcare, or learning to use the aid of other countries in times of need, versus the potential financial insecurities a national tax could bring to a nation under a healthcare system? The research will differ in topic, and orientation; but I will attempt to eliminate

In the article, it says that more than thirty percent of Americans support this push to have a personalized plan. The Pew Research Center reported that 60% of the population said that the government should ensure health care coverage but 39% said that the government should not which brings up a question, where is the other 1% leaning. The influence of private investors, companies and government programs have completely taken over the health care system so the core roots of what was originally established have been somewhat lost. Pharmaceutical companies are very against the push to single-payer health care because it jeopardizes their profit off their patients. Looking at how the investors see Obamacare is that they get to control the prices of medications, they mandate how much a procedure may cost and it can fluctuate depending on where you want to seek care. The single-payer option completely discards the monopolies out of health care and also underpays physicians. "In a single-payer system," Dr. Michael Accad from San Francisco says, "planners decide arbitrarily what the payments should be, and payments fall because there are no competitors and no choice for providers to bid up payments." A study did show that primary care physicians received higher pay with Medicare rather than a centralized system such as Canada. Dr. Accad says that single-payer systems in Canada, the United Kingdom, and other developed

If the US were to adopt the single-payer system, as exists in Great Britain under the National Health Service (NHS), "a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity a government-run organization would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.... In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don't have it" (What is single payer, 2012, PNHP).

The future of healthcare resides in a single-payer system. Our country already has roughly fifty years of experience in this area under the Medicare program. By extending Medicare to all citizens we could ensure that all have the health coverage they need and that “everyone would make a financial contribution to Medicare for All” (Seidman, 2015). A single-payer system would also give the government the necessary leverage to negotiate better prices for care and prescription

The Federal Healthcare Reform is currently using the already instated insurance system that the United States has and builds upon it to make it more accessible for everyone. The federal health care reform was intended for every legal citizen of the United States. The health care system has been in effect for just over a century and has shown its many different faces to the public. Since a formal health care system has not been around for very long, there are several alternatives that could be put in place in order to find the right fit for Americans. There are also some political constraints such as the backlash from the public that have made it hard to make

The concept of a national single-payer health care system in America is far from a new one. In his journal, Dr. Jonathan Oberlander (2016) listed some of the proposals that have been made in the United States over the years. The first on his list was a bill that was created in 1943 with plans to establish a payroll tax-funded health insurance for the whole country; despite the

A national health care system in the United States has been a contentious topic of debate for over a century. Social reformists have been fighting for universal health care for all Americans, while the opposition claims that a “social” heath care system has no place in the ‘Land of the Free’.

A single payer national health care program could save American?s billions of dollars currently being spent on health care and insurance. A 2000 report by John Sheils and Randall Haught of the Lewin group on the costs and impact of a health care system in the state of Maryland showed that a single payer system implemented in that state would save its citizens 346.8 million dollars a year.(3) The majority of savings from this would come from vast reductions in administrative costs associated with insurance companies and the filing of claims. Sheils also reports that the average family would spend 261 dollars less each year on health costs (7). John Canham-Clyne notes in his book The Rational Option that a single payer bill proposed in the Senate was estimated to save the American public $110 billion a year by the Congressional Budget Office(24). The savings

Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.

In this case, in https://www.formosapost.com it says, “implementing a single payer health care system causes an increase in taxes as the system needs to be paid for. The overall costs if the system can be draining on a country and causes large debts.” Secondly, in https://www.formosapost.com it says, “The existing U.S government healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program is already putting a huge strain on public budget. Adding a universal healthcare program to these would amount to enormous growth in government spending and debt.” This shows how if everyone in the United States had insurance, the government would have to pay off for everything from everyone that needs help with their health.