Nationalizing Healthcare - a discussion
Henry Gorman, Arthur Lim, Daniel Acuna, Khalil Santa - A polite and civilized discourse between 4 diverse voices of modern America.
Within the United States of America, partisanship has increased steadily in recent decades. Controversial topics from abortion to immigration policy have become incredibly polarizing. For healthcare, such partisanship and controversy is nothing new. But if the US established a universal healthcare system for all residents, it could equally provide necessary services and procedures without any exorbitant costs to the patient. This would create a system that all common citizens could enjoy, regardless of their political stances.
Although universal health coverage has its obvious benefits, there are genuine limitations and issues that must be addressed before its implementation. Providing people with the full range of health services regardless of their background or financial situation improves the overall well-being of a society. By giving access to all types of treatment and preventative measures, there tends to be a decrease in mortality rates that subsequently allows the life expectancy of a nation to rise. However, this approach comes at an immense cost for the government, as up to trillions of dollars may have to be spent over years to provide nationwide healthcare. A single-payer system would require increased tax rates on all Americans, especially impacting the middle class as taxes could exceed the savings from eliminated premiums. Yet, we can combat this by ensuring a proper policy design, such as applying a heavier tax on wealthier individuals and assessing who is appropriate to assist in the funding of America’s healthcare. According to the article “Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care” by The Week, “medical debt is a significant problem… with U.S. residents owing at least $220 billion total.” This highlights how a single-payer system would alleviate stressors on American families, ultimately allowing them to focus on personal growth and contribute to their community without the constant worry of having to pay abnormally high costs for their own well-being. It is important to recognize the United States’ medical discoveries and advanced technology, which allow its quality of healthcare to compare favorably and even surpass that of other parts of the world. Therefore, it is not so much an issue of the services themselves but rather the lack of access to them. The diversity of race, ethnicity, and class in the American population has resulted in certain communities for whom access to healthcare is similar to those of less developed countries. It is imperative for America to capitalize on its cutting-edge medical interventions by expanding their availability through the reduction of financial burdens. Despite the many challenges that come with universal health coverage, it would greatly improve America’s chronic disease and mental health crisis. A nationalized healthcare system is crucial to the prosperity of the nation, and as Hillary Clinton stated on this issue in 1994, “it will be such a huge popular issue… that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be.” This subject is relevant to every single person in the United States, as the ability of America’s healthcare system to cater to individual needs directly affects the people’s welfare and safety.
The degree at which healthcare should cover care services can be determined by looking at other countries’ healthcare systems, their coverage of care services, and the outcome of their level of coverage (their flaws and the benefits). Taiwan has universal care coverage under their national healthcare, covering necessary and cosmetic medical services. There is a low doctor-to-patient ratio, meaning that patients depend on too few doctors. The universal coverage encourages more frequent, unnecessary doctor visits, which in addition with the low doctor-to-patient ratio, decreases the quality of care given to each patient, with visits lasting 2-5 minutes per patient. Australia’s national healthcare covers medically necessary procedures, excluding cosmetic services. According to the Australian Institute of Healthcare and Welfare, Australia has received positive reports from patients of the experience provided by their general practitioners, with 71% reporting their GP always listened to them, and 79% spent enough time with them. Australia’s outcome of covering only necessary visits helps keep unnecessary visits down. This has a positive outcome of the quality of care, which contrasts Taiwan’s subpar quality of care. The United Kingdom’s healthcare system covers most aspects of medical services, from medically necessary to cosmetic services. The UK’s national healthcare, the NHS, is unfortunately notorious for its long wait times, with many people opting for private healthcare for means of receiving their care faster. This is caused by understaffing, a similar problem to that of Taiwan’s healthcare system, where people demand health services more than possible under their healthcare provider. Considering the issues and successes of different nations’ healthcare, we can consider that:
At a minimum, free healthcare should fully cover medically necessary care, such as: primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, medically necessary surgeries, preventive care, mental health treatment, maternal care, and prescription drugs.
These services protect life, prevent long-term harm, and reduce future costs.
Specialized and advanced care such as specialist visits, imaging, chronic disease management, and medical devices should also be covered but guided by clinical criteria to prevent misuse.
Services that improve quality of life, including dental, vision, hearing, and long-term care, should be at least partially covered to avoid serious harm.
Elective and non-essential services, such as cosmetic procedures without medical need or unproven treatments, should remain outside free coverage and be paid for privately to prevent overuse or misuse of services and ensure everyone can receive equal quality care.
In the shadow of endless political debate, nationalized healthcare seems to be an impractical goal at best, but the actual development of such a system within the United States is much more obtainable than it is often portrayed. Australia, commonly ranked amongst the top healthcare systems in the world, has had nationalized healthcare since 1975. According to the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, the system is in place to provide a “Medicare Safety Net,” which ensures all citizens have access to life saving care. Like most, the system is compartmentalized, providing cheaper medical services, access to public hospitals, and controlled pharmaceutical prices. Arguments against such a system always come down to the price tag, and ensuing tax raises. A comparison of high income ($190,000/year) citizens within each country would reveal this to be true, with the Australian paying around $55,000 in income tax compared to the American’s $39,000. But it is lower income citizens ($45,000/year) who most need, and would most benefit from this system. Currently, both the lower income Australian and the American pay $5,400 in income tax, (including a 2% Medicare levy for the Australian), but the American has to pay an additional average out of pocket cost of $1,100 for medical services. Add on to that private insurance costs, which roughly half of Australia's population pays, and the American is paying $7,000 to the Australian’s $3,500. There are many ways to implement the system, with Singapore relying heavily on government controls, and Germany operating largely through independent organizations, but in both situations, the efficiency of the system is far greater than that of the United States, given that according to the World Bank, around 17% of the US GDP goes towards healthcare while only 5% in Singapore, and 10% in Germany. No matter how much noise surrounds the pursuit of nationalized healthcare within the United States, it is crucial to remember that such a system is working incredibly successfully around the globe, and surely can be put into place within our nation.
If the United States focused on decreasing healthcare spending by expanding medicare and consolidating insurance while also adding other economic policies, universal healthcare would be within reach. If medicare was expanded to include all citizens and not just those over 65 or citizens who live with disabilities, the insurance premiums paid for by the people would be greatly diminished. In the United States, the sheer number of privately owned insurers creates losses and inefficiencies when there is administrative waste. By limiting the number of insurers to only a few or having them be controlled by the federal or state governments, Americans could save at the minimum fifteen percent on health care costs. For example, Canada has one insurance plan in each of their provinces and territories to maintain a noncommercial system for all that is deemed necessary. Additionally, the United States government could put a focus on general care and preventative medicine rather than more economically lucrative specialist care. Part of the reason for the high spending by citizens is the lower physicians per capita number when compared to similarly powerful countries like the UK and Germany. Predatory and expensive procedures pushed on citizens and in particular aging citizens also contribute to the high costs for many. The most expensive procedure is not always the best for the patient, but for profit hospitals and insurance companies do not simply want what is best for them. Additionally, the price of medical services in hospitals experiences inflation of up to 14% simply because of the fact that people are being given care within a hospital, not because the care is of higher quality. With the for profit medical system comes for profit pharmaceutical companies increasing the costs of their prescription medicine. If the US government put limits on the profitability of these companies, billions of dollars could be kept in the pockets of US citizens. The biggest change that could be instituted in the search for “free” universal healthcare is of course the way it is paid for. Instead of the money being charged individually to each patient, the US would use state and federal taxes to support all of the patient’s care. In other countries with concrete universal healthcare (The Netherlands, France, The UK) more than 80% of healthcare is through public governmentally monitored plans, which often means 0 direct cost to the patient. The US could emulate the Canadian system and have taxes be collected in both the state level and the federal level and give back to the state the power to decide how it is allotted and what it covers. Finding how to pay for such a system is one of the most crucial steps on the path towards universal healthcare for all residents.
An equal system that both those in more impoverished communities and those in the upper tax brackets can enjoy, universal healthcare would undoubtedly provide a safety net for all citizens and help decrease the medical debt that many people fall into. This is all part of the contract of the government; not only a protector, but also a provider for the people of the United States of America. A provider, no matter how much money is in your bank account or which president you voted for.
Works Cited:
https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm
https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/the-australian-health-system?language=en
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/medicare
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/singapore
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?locations=US
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/how-much-does-health-insurance-cost/
https://www.canstar.com.au/health-insurance/what-does-health-insurance-cost/
https://theweek.com/health/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care
https://pnhp.org/news/hillary-clinton-1994-statement-on-single-payer/
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/
https://www.paho.org/en/topics/universal-health
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447684/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7692272/
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc)
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/taiwan
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3405352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578535/
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(09)01115-2/fulltext
https://www.pgpf.org/article/why-are-americans-paying-more-for-healthcare/
https://www.cma.ca/our-focus/public-and-private-health-care/how-do-other-countries-do-it
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/universalhealthcoverage#1
Within the United States of America, partisanship has increased steadily in recent decades. Controversial topics from abortion to immigration policy have become incredibly polarizing. For healthcare, such partisanship and controversy is nothing new. But if the US established a universal healthcare system for all residents, it could equally provide necessary services and procedures without any exorbitant costs to the patient. This would create a system that all common citizens could enjoy, regardless of their political stances.
Although universal health coverage has its obvious benefits, there are genuine limitations and issues that must be addressed before its implementation. Providing people with the full range of health services regardless of their background or financial situation improves the overall well-being of a society. By giving access to all types of treatment and preventative measures, there tends to be a decrease in mortality rates that subsequently allows the life expectancy of a nation to rise. However, this approach comes at an immense cost for the government, as up to trillions of dollars may have to be spent over years to provide nationwide healthcare. A single-payer system would require increased tax rates on all Americans, especially impacting the middle class as taxes could exceed the savings from eliminated premiums. Yet, we can combat this by ensuring a proper policy design, such as applying a heavier tax on wealthier individuals and assessing who is appropriate to assist in the funding of America’s healthcare. According to the article “Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care” by The Week, “medical debt is a significant problem… with U.S. residents owing at least $220 billion total.” This highlights how a single-payer system would alleviate stressors on American families, ultimately allowing them to focus on personal growth and contribute to their community without the constant worry of having to pay abnormally high costs for their own well-being. It is important to recognize the United States’ medical discoveries and advanced technology, which allow its quality of healthcare to compare favorably and even surpass that of other parts of the world. Therefore, it is not so much an issue of the services themselves but rather the lack of access to them. The diversity of race, ethnicity, and class in the American population has resulted in certain communities for whom access to healthcare is similar to those of less developed countries. It is imperative for America to capitalize on its cutting-edge medical interventions by expanding their availability through the reduction of financial burdens. Despite the many challenges that come with universal health coverage, it would greatly improve America’s chronic disease and mental health crisis. A nationalized healthcare system is crucial to the prosperity of the nation, and as Hillary Clinton stated on this issue in 1994, “it will be such a huge popular issue… that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be.” This subject is relevant to every single person in the United States, as the ability of America’s healthcare system to cater to individual needs directly affects the people’s welfare and safety.
The degree at which healthcare should cover care services can be determined by looking at other countries’ healthcare systems, their coverage of care services, and the outcome of their level of coverage (their flaws and the benefits). Taiwan has universal care coverage under their national healthcare, covering necessary and cosmetic medical services. There is a low doctor-to-patient ratio, meaning that patients depend on too few doctors. The universal coverage encourages more frequent, unnecessary doctor visits, which in addition with the low doctor-to-patient ratio, decreases the quality of care given to each patient, with visits lasting 2-5 minutes per patient. Australia’s national healthcare covers medically necessary procedures, excluding cosmetic services. According to the Australian Institute of Healthcare and Welfare, Australia has received positive reports from patients of the experience provided by their general practitioners, with 71% reporting their GP always listened to them, and 79% spent enough time with them. Australia’s outcome of covering only necessary visits helps keep unnecessary visits down. This has a positive outcome of the quality of care, which contrasts Taiwan’s subpar quality of care. The United Kingdom’s healthcare system covers most aspects of medical services, from medically necessary to cosmetic services. The UK’s national healthcare, the NHS, is unfortunately notorious for its long wait times, with many people opting for private healthcare for means of receiving their care faster. This is caused by understaffing, a similar problem to that of Taiwan’s healthcare system, where people demand health services more than possible under their healthcare provider. Considering the issues and successes of different nations’ healthcare, we can consider that:
At a minimum, free healthcare should fully cover medically necessary care, such as: primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, medically necessary surgeries, preventive care, mental health treatment, maternal care, and prescription drugs.
These services protect life, prevent long-term harm, and reduce future costs.
Specialized and advanced care such as specialist visits, imaging, chronic disease management, and medical devices should also be covered but guided by clinical criteria to prevent misuse.
Services that improve quality of life, including dental, vision, hearing, and long-term care, should be at least partially covered to avoid serious harm.
Elective and non-essential services, such as cosmetic procedures without medical need or unproven treatments, should remain outside free coverage and be paid for privately to prevent overuse or misuse of services and ensure everyone can receive equal quality care.
In the shadow of endless political debate, nationalized healthcare seems to be an impractical goal at best, but the actual development of such a system within the United States is much more obtainable than it is often portrayed. Australia, commonly ranked amongst the top healthcare systems in the world, has had nationalized healthcare since 1975. According to the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, the system is in place to provide a “Medicare Safety Net,” which ensures all citizens have access to life saving care. Like most, the system is compartmentalized, providing cheaper medical services, access to public hospitals, and controlled pharmaceutical prices. Arguments against such a system always come down to the price tag, and ensuing tax raises. A comparison of high income ($190,000/year) citizens within each country would reveal this to be true, with the Australian paying around $55,000 in income tax compared to the American’s $39,000. But it is lower income citizens ($45,000/year) who most need, and would most benefit from this system. Currently, both the lower income Australian and the American pay $5,400 in income tax, (including a 2% Medicare levy for the Australian), but the American has to pay an additional average out of pocket cost of $1,100 for medical services. Add on to that private insurance costs, which roughly half of Australia's population pays, and the American is paying $7,000 to the Australian’s $3,500. There are many ways to implement the system, with Singapore relying heavily on government controls, and Germany operating largely through independent organizations, but in both situations, the efficiency of the system is far greater than that of the United States, given that according to the World Bank, around 17% of the US GDP goes towards healthcare while only 5% in Singapore, and 10% in Germany. No matter how much noise surrounds the pursuit of nationalized healthcare within the United States, it is crucial to remember that such a system is working incredibly successfully around the globe, and surely can be put into place within our nation.
If the United States focused on decreasing healthcare spending by expanding medicare and consolidating insurance while also adding other economic policies, universal healthcare would be within reach. If medicare was expanded to include all citizens and not just those over 65 or citizens who live with disabilities, the insurance premiums paid for by the people would be greatly diminished. In the United States, the sheer number of privately owned insurers creates losses and inefficiencies when there is administrative waste. By limiting the number of insurers to only a few or having them be controlled by the federal or state governments, Americans could save at the minimum fifteen percent on health care costs. For example, Canada has one insurance plan in each of their provinces and territories to maintain a noncommercial system for all that is deemed necessary. Additionally, the United States government could put a focus on general care and preventative medicine rather than more economically lucrative specialist care. Part of the reason for the high spending by citizens is the lower physicians per capita number when compared to similarly powerful countries like the UK and Germany. Predatory and expensive procedures pushed on citizens and in particular aging citizens also contribute to the high costs for many. The most expensive procedure is not always the best for the patient, but for profit hospitals and insurance companies do not simply want what is best for them. Additionally, the price of medical services in hospitals experiences inflation of up to 14% simply because of the fact that people are being given care within a hospital, not because the care is of higher quality. With the for profit medical system comes for profit pharmaceutical companies increasing the costs of their prescription medicine. If the US government put limits on the profitability of these companies, billions of dollars could be kept in the pockets of US citizens. The biggest change that could be instituted in the search for “free” universal healthcare is of course the way it is paid for. Instead of the money being charged individually to each patient, the US would use state and federal taxes to support all of the patient’s care. In other countries with concrete universal healthcare (The Netherlands, France, The UK) more than 80% of healthcare is through public governmentally monitored plans, which often means 0 direct cost to the patient. The US could emulate the Canadian system and have taxes be collected in both the state level and the federal level and give back to the state the power to decide how it is allotted and what it covers. Finding how to pay for such a system is one of the most crucial steps on the path towards universal healthcare for all residents.
An equal system that both those in more impoverished communities and those in the upper tax brackets can enjoy, universal healthcare would undoubtedly provide a safety net for all citizens and help decrease the medical debt that many people fall into. This is all part of the contract of the government; not only a protector, but also a provider for the people of the United States of America. A provider, no matter how much money is in your bank account or which president you voted for.
Works Cited:
https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm
https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/the-australian-health-system?language=en
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/medicare
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/singapore
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?locations=US
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/how-much-does-health-insurance-cost/
https://www.canstar.com.au/health-insurance/what-does-health-insurance-cost/
https://theweek.com/health/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care
https://pnhp.org/news/hillary-clinton-1994-statement-on-single-payer/
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/
https://www.paho.org/en/topics/universal-health
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447684/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7692272/
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc)
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/taiwan
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3405352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578535/
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(09)01115-2/fulltext
https://www.pgpf.org/article/why-are-americans-paying-more-for-healthcare/
https://www.cma.ca/our-focus/public-and-private-health-care/how-do-other-countries-do-it
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/universalhealthcoverage#1
Within the United States of America, partisanship has increased steadily in recent decades. Controversial topics from abortion to immigration policy have become incredibly polarizing. For healthcare, such partisanship and controversy is nothing new. But if the US established a universal healthcare system for all residents, it could equally provide necessary services and procedures without any exorbitant costs to the patient. This would create a system that all common citizens could enjoy, regardless of their political stances.
Although universal health coverage has its obvious benefits, there are genuine limitations and issues that must be addressed before its implementation. Providing people with the full range of health services regardless of their background or financial situation improves the overall well-being of a society. By giving access to all types of treatment and preventative measures, there tends to be a decrease in mortality rates that subsequently allows the life expectancy of a nation to rise. However, this approach comes at an immense cost for the government, as up to trillions of dollars may have to be spent over years to provide nationwide healthcare. A single-payer system would require increased tax rates on all Americans, especially impacting the middle class as taxes could exceed the savings from eliminated premiums. Yet, we can combat this by ensuring a proper policy design, such as applying a heavier tax on wealthier individuals and assessing who is appropriate to assist in the funding of America’s healthcare. According to the article “Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care” by The Week, “medical debt is a significant problem… with U.S. residents owing at least $220 billion total.” This highlights how a single-payer system would alleviate stressors on American families, ultimately allowing them to focus on personal growth and contribute to their community without the constant worry of having to pay abnormally high costs for their own well-being. It is important to recognize the United States’ medical discoveries and advanced technology, which allow its quality of healthcare to compare favorably and even surpass that of other parts of the world. Therefore, it is not so much an issue of the services themselves but rather the lack of access to them. The diversity of race, ethnicity, and class in the American population has resulted in certain communities for whom access to healthcare is similar to those of less developed countries. It is imperative for America to capitalize on its cutting-edge medical interventions by expanding their availability through the reduction of financial burdens. Despite the many challenges that come with universal health coverage, it would greatly improve America’s chronic disease and mental health crisis. A nationalized healthcare system is crucial to the prosperity of the nation, and as Hillary Clinton stated on this issue in 1994, “it will be such a huge popular issue… that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be.” This subject is relevant to every single person in the United States, as the ability of America’s healthcare system to cater to individual needs directly affects the people’s welfare and safety.
The degree at which healthcare should cover care services can be determined by looking at other countries’ healthcare systems, their coverage of care services, and the outcome of their level of coverage (their flaws and the benefits). Taiwan has universal care coverage under their national healthcare, covering necessary and cosmetic medical services. There is a low doctor-to-patient ratio, meaning that patients depend on too few doctors. The universal coverage encourages more frequent, unnecessary doctor visits, which in addition with the low doctor-to-patient ratio, decreases the quality of care given to each patient, with visits lasting 2-5 minutes per patient. Australia’s national healthcare covers medically necessary procedures, excluding cosmetic services. According to the Australian Institute of Healthcare and Welfare, Australia has received positive reports from patients of the experience provided by their general practitioners, with 71% reporting their GP always listened to them, and 79% spent enough time with them. Australia’s outcome of covering only necessary visits helps keep unnecessary visits down. This has a positive outcome of the quality of care, which contrasts Taiwan’s subpar quality of care. The United Kingdom’s healthcare system covers most aspects of medical services, from medically necessary to cosmetic services. The UK’s national healthcare, the NHS, is unfortunately notorious for its long wait times, with many people opting for private healthcare for means of receiving their care faster. This is caused by understaffing, a similar problem to that of Taiwan’s healthcare system, where people demand health services more than possible under their healthcare provider. Considering the issues and successes of different nations’ healthcare, we can consider that:
At a minimum, free healthcare should fully cover medically necessary care, such as: primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, medically necessary surgeries, preventive care, mental health treatment, maternal care, and prescription drugs.
These services protect life, prevent long-term harm, and reduce future costs.
Specialized and advanced care such as specialist visits, imaging, chronic disease management, and medical devices should also be covered but guided by clinical criteria to prevent misuse.
Services that improve quality of life, including dental, vision, hearing, and long-term care, should be at least partially covered to avoid serious harm.
Elective and non-essential services, such as cosmetic procedures without medical need or unproven treatments, should remain outside free coverage and be paid for privately to prevent overuse or misuse of services and ensure everyone can receive equal quality care.
In the shadow of endless political debate, nationalized healthcare seems to be an impractical goal at best, but the actual development of such a system within the United States is much more obtainable than it is often portrayed. Australia, commonly ranked amongst the top healthcare systems in the world, has had nationalized healthcare since 1975. According to the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, the system is in place to provide a “Medicare Safety Net,” which ensures all citizens have access to life saving care. Like most, the system is compartmentalized, providing cheaper medical services, access to public hospitals, and controlled pharmaceutical prices. Arguments against such a system always come down to the price tag, and ensuing tax raises. A comparison of high income ($190,000/year) citizens within each country would reveal this to be true, with the Australian paying around $55,000 in income tax compared to the American’s $39,000. But it is lower income citizens ($45,000/year) who most need, and would most benefit from this system. Currently, both the lower income Australian and the American pay $5,400 in income tax, (including a 2% Medicare levy for the Australian), but the American has to pay an additional average out of pocket cost of $1,100 for medical services. Add on to that private insurance costs, which roughly half of Australia's population pays, and the American is paying $7,000 to the Australian’s $3,500. There are many ways to implement the system, with Singapore relying heavily on government controls, and Germany operating largely through independent organizations, but in both situations, the efficiency of the system is far greater than that of the United States, given that according to the World Bank, around 17% of the US GDP goes towards healthcare while only 5% in Singapore, and 10% in Germany. No matter how much noise surrounds the pursuit of nationalized healthcare within the United States, it is crucial to remember that such a system is working incredibly successfully around the globe, and surely can be put into place within our nation.
If the United States focused on decreasing healthcare spending by expanding medicare and consolidating insurance while also adding other economic policies, universal healthcare would be within reach. If medicare was expanded to include all citizens and not just those over 65 or citizens who live with disabilities, the insurance premiums paid for by the people would be greatly diminished. In the United States, the sheer number of privately owned insurers creates losses and inefficiencies when there is administrative waste. By limiting the number of insurers to only a few or having them be controlled by the federal or state governments, Americans could save at the minimum fifteen percent on health care costs. For example, Canada has one insurance plan in each of their provinces and territories to maintain a noncommercial system for all that is deemed necessary. Additionally, the United States government could put a focus on general care and preventative medicine rather than more economically lucrative specialist care. Part of the reason for the high spending by citizens is the lower physicians per capita number when compared to similarly powerful countries like the UK and Germany. Predatory and expensive procedures pushed on citizens and in particular aging citizens also contribute to the high costs for many. The most expensive procedure is not always the best for the patient, but for profit hospitals and insurance companies do not simply want what is best for them. Additionally, the price of medical services in hospitals experiences inflation of up to 14% simply because of the fact that people are being given care within a hospital, not because the care is of higher quality. With the for profit medical system comes for profit pharmaceutical companies increasing the costs of their prescription medicine. If the US government put limits on the profitability of these companies, billions of dollars could be kept in the pockets of US citizens. The biggest change that could be instituted in the search for “free” universal healthcare is of course the way it is paid for. Instead of the money being charged individually to each patient, the US would use state and federal taxes to support all of the patient’s care. In other countries with concrete universal healthcare (The Netherlands, France, The UK) more than 80% of healthcare is through public governmentally monitored plans, which often means 0 direct cost to the patient. The US could emulate the Canadian system and have taxes be collected in both the state level and the federal level and give back to the state the power to decide how it is allotted and what it covers. Finding how to pay for such a system is one of the most crucial steps on the path towards universal healthcare for all residents.
An equal system that both those in more impoverished communities and those in the upper tax brackets can enjoy, universal healthcare would undoubtedly provide a safety net for all citizens and help decrease the medical debt that many people fall into. This is all part of the contract of the government; not only a protector, but also a provider for the people of the United States of America. A provider, no matter how much money is in your bank account or which president you voted for.
Works Cited:
https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm
https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/the-australian-health-system?language=en
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/medicare
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/singapore
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?locations=US
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/how-much-does-health-insurance-cost/
https://www.canstar.com.au/health-insurance/what-does-health-insurance-cost/
https://theweek.com/health/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care
https://pnhp.org/news/hillary-clinton-1994-statement-on-single-payer/
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/
https://www.paho.org/en/topics/universal-health
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447684/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7692272/
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc)
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/taiwan
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3405352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578535/
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(09)01115-2/fulltext
https://www.pgpf.org/article/why-are-americans-paying-more-for-healthcare/
https://www.cma.ca/our-focus/public-and-private-health-care/how-do-other-countries-do-it
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/universalhealthcoverage#1
Feel free to email me suggestions or anything you want me to write about
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.