United States Health Care System Introduction: Should the United States Adopt a Health Care System? I. Definition of a national health care system. A. National systems are government operated organizations.
1. Health care systems ensure that everyone will get medical attention and care. 2. Three forms of government operated health systems. B. Examples of insured and uninsured people. 1. There are people without insurance who cannot afford insurance. 2. Insurance policies are frequently used to full potential. II. People are unsure and ignorant with the idea of a national health care system.
A. Private Health care systems are familiar and accepted by the people. 1. Problems can arise with a new system. 2. Improper planning would be devastating to the economy. B. A national health care system would benefit everyone. 1. The U. S. has the funds for a national system and would save taxpayers money . 2. Having a national system would ensure everyone medical attention. 3. Each state would have board members to make important decisions. 4. Doctors would still have the right not to participate. 5. There would be a certain structure to follow.
Conclusion: People know there is a problem with the health care system but they do not try to educate themselves. Changes are desired and people should play a more active roll and speak out when it comes to health care. The U. S. desperately needs to form a national health care system and the people should stand behind the government in order to achieve the objective and concerns of a system. National Health Care System “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane. ” Martin Luther King, Jr.
A national health care system is a program operated by the government, designed to provide health care for people in need of medical assistance. All industrial nations except the United States have a national health care system that covers everyone. Generally, in the U. S. health care systems are privately funded insurance companies. The U. S. has three forms of governmental health care; Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for lower income families, and the Children‘s Health Insurance Program. The problem with these health care systems is that many people fall short of qualifying.
Is the U. S. in dire need of a national health care system or should we always rely on the familiar and dependable; as in private health care systems? In the U. S. billions of dollars are spent each year on health care; “approximately 232 million out of a total of 274 million people now have health insurance” (Blue Cross Blue Shield 2001); leaving 42 million people uninsured. Insurance can be expensive for people to attain on their own, this explains why the majority are covered mainly through private health care provided by their employers.
Not all employers provide insurance, such as, small business who can‘t afford to provide coverage for their employees. People who have insurance frequently waste money on health care that exceeds their needs; while others do not have adequate health care for what they require. The quality of healthcare occasionally depends on whether the patient has the “right” insurance or any at all. The National Coalition on Health Care conducted a poll consisting of over a thousand American households concerning the health care system.
“Eight out of Ten people felt that there is something seriously wrong with the health care system and that it is unaffordable. Five out of Ten people are satisfied with the quality of their insurance,” (emphasis mine). Private health systems aid in providing new technology, different plans, educational programs for members, and convenient locations around the nation. “Health plans are continually evolving and improving their operations and their relationship with consumers” (Young, interim president of HIAA 2001). Private health insurance’s pay at least one third of health care costs.
There are concerns about forming a national health care system. People are weary of the government having total control, wasting funds and socialized medicine; private systems are viewed as being more “efficient“. There could be long lines and delays in receiving health services? Other nations have had such problems by not considering an increase in population or costs of medical care. Would a national health care system lower health care quality? Are the finances available for everyone in the U. S. to have coverage, it would cost billions of dollars to start the system, who would pay?
Starting a national system could cause a decrease in wages that would result in hospitals being under staffed and a loss of jobs. Would doctor patient relationships change? According to the World Medical Association, “doctors should not be forced to participate in a healthcare system. Doctors should be able to practice where they want and be able to treat patients of their choice. ” The government’s Medicare program operates 2 percent less than private systems. They do not have corporate administrative expenses. The current health care system contains uninsured people or corporate insurances which keep cutting back to be more “efficient“.
The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have conducted studies that prove that the U. S. can provide health care for everyone without additional funds that are already being spent today. The U. S. has more capabilities in technology than the other nations and more available funds. The other nations need only increase their budget to adapt to the needs of healthcare. Socialized medicine is government owned facilities and government employees supervising all health care. Socialized medicine is not part of a national health care system, there would still be private and public sectors of the health care system.
“Contrary to the widely publicized view that government should not be involved in health care, the survey indicates a bipartisan majority of Americans feel the federal government should play an active role in working with the private sector to improve the quality of health care” (The National Coalition on Health Care 2001). “Our Health care cannot progress without an articulated purpose, a common vision expressed as policy that eliminates ambiguity of purpose, ambivalence towards performance standards, conflicts of principles, and contradictions of goals” (Sultz 1991).
Adopting a national system would enable everyone to receive quality health care and a greater choice of doctors. Health care would be portable, not having to make new arrangements with private healthcare systems because it would eliminate corporate insurances. People would have one medical record from birth until death making it safer for patients. Hospital billing would be eliminated because there would be base rates. There would be one plan, therefore eliminating multiple plans and having to find the “right” plan. There would be no more deductibles, premiums or pre-existing conditions.
Clinical decisions would be made by the doctor and patient as opposed to an insurance company. It would save business’ the hassle of finding insurance companies; also saving time and money from having to deal with all of the paperwork. Savings in administrative costs would offset the initial cost of starting a national system. There would be general guidelines and specific exclusions in the system, for example, the plan would not include cosmetic surgery. Hospitals would receive an annual expense account for patient care and another account for medical expenses.
Doctors would be paid salaries or by capitation. Employers would pay less than 10 percent payroll tax and employees would only pay 2 percent, replacing employer-employee insurance premiums that are more costly. Not all doctor’s would have to participate. There would still be private doctors and clinics. Each state would have a board overseeing decisions they will be highly educated doctors. The U. S. can be considered the wealthiest nation with the greatest technology for health care services to provide for everyone. “We need to make only one basic change.
We need to discard the antiquated, cruel, wasteful, ineffective, corporate model health plans and replace them with an efficient, publicly administered, universal risk pool” (McCanne and Woolhandler). It is the right time to adopt a national health care system that will guarantee quality, accessibility and cost containment in order to have an equal health care system. Bibliography : Works Cited “Canada’s Health Care System Still at Risk Says Hargrove. ” Canada Newswire Ltd. 13 Sept. 2001 Daniels, Norman. Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform.
London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996. “Facts on Health Care Quality: Quality is Doing the Right Thing Right the First Time. ” The National Coalition on Health Care Feb. 2001. Himmelstein, DU. , et al. “A national health program for the United States. A physicians’ proposal. ” Center for National Health Program Studies, Cambridge Hospital- Harvard Medical School 320 (1989) 102-108. Luchok, Joseph. Three Major Studies on the Health Care System, The Health Insurance Association of America, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, 2001.
McCanne, Don M. D. , et al. , “The Corporate Model has Failed: We Need to Create a Publicly Administered, Universal Risk Pool. ” Physicians for a National Health Program. (retrieved), 23 Oct. 2001. Mueller, Keith. “Health Care Policy in the United States. ” University of Nebraska Press, 1993. “National Health Care Issues. ” Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. 7 Nov. 2001 Orient, Jane M M. D. Your Doctor is not in Healthy Skepticism About National Healthcare. Macon, GA: Crown Publishing, Inc. , 1997. Rasell, E. , M. D. PhD. “Universal Coverage: How Do We Pay For It?
” Economic Policy Institute June 1998. Sultz, H, “Health Policy: If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, Any Road Will Take You. ” American Journal of Public Health 81 (1991) 4 418-420. Trupin, Aaron M. A. , National Health Insurance. Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia. 7 Nov. 2001. “Twelve Principles of Provision of Health Care in any National Health Care System. ” World Medical Association Adopted by the 17th World Medical Assembly. New York. Oct. 1963. Woolhandler, S. , et al. “Liberal Benefits, Conservative Spending. ” Physicians for a National Health Program JAMA. 15 May 1991.