The process that I have gone through in gathering and analyzing information on the United States health care system has helped me to form views on the topic. Initial ideas were altered, built on, or lost in this process to help my knowledge and understanding on the topic to grow. At the end of my research the views that I now have are a result of continually seeking new information and relating back to my original thoughts. Interactions with my class mates and other bloggers who are interested in the topic of universal health care has helped me to question my way of thinking and make sure not to overlook the details of my analysis. The questions that were brought up also made me take into question the sources of my information. The product of this work is an established opinion of my thoughts on the American health care system and the adjustments that could be made to improve it.
In the twenty-first century the internet has become a valuable resource for research. It is hard to use internet research in evolving an idea; however, because of the rarity of reliable sources, the abundance of information, and the bias that writers display. My goal in formulating my own opinions was to avoid letting writer's bias affect what I think, so as to base my thoughts on the facts. Sources of bias that i found were blogs like Radical Health Care Reform, which uses sarcasm to deliberately push one side of the argument. As weak spots in my argument were pointed out I worked to reinforce them with concrete evidence. Learning about the new ideas that have developed surrounding the issue of health care in the U.S. is another interesting aspect that comes with researching a topic. While I was deciding how I think that the health care system should be altered I gathered ideas from the proposals of others like, California One Care. The spectrum of attitudes that surround the debate include those held by citizens, doctors, government officials, employers, and providers. To better understand the needs of each group and why they hold their positions I have analyzed the situations that each is faced with in the debate, and how they effect each other individually. One of the reasons that health care is capable of being a binary public issue is in the number of groups that are involved int the debate in varying ways. Change Now 4 Health provides an outline of the majority of these groups in their promotion of a "come together" attitude.
The growing amount of Americans who have concern about the health care issue shows how perspective and understanding changes over time with need. An increasing amount of Americans need health insurance and therefore the importance of finding a way to provide it is becoming more popular in the media. The recent airing of a film by Michael Moore titled Sicko has played an active role in bringing the health care debate into the media. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows how Americans rank the importance of revamping the American health care system as of 2004. A gain of knowledge will always impact an individual's way of thinking whether it acts to enforce original beliefs or to calls for acceptance of new ones.
The knowledge that I gained about health care in America and the topics surrounding the health care debate have helped me to alter my personal opinions. I started out with the general idea that universal health care sounded good; it provides health care to everyone and it is a logical system to use based on the number of other countries that have established it. I am still in support of universal health care to an extent, but the information that I have now has helped me to make my position more specific. The right to receive health care in my opinion should be given to all Americans, regardless of economic status. In effect to pay for a system that can handle the costs of such a system I think that taxes should be raised a minimal amount with a cap that would prevent an extensive strain on wealthy citizens. This idea for tax increase I found in the California One Care site. Taking the profit market out of health care at some level would also help to decrease costs of health care for citizens. The reason that I say "some level" is that I still believe doctors and researchers will need incentive to find ways to increase productivity and quality. I think that the plan presented by John Edwards to have a government regulation on prices would be one possible way to help make the change. Truthfully the American health insurance industry could be avoided completely to increase the efficiency of health care. I realize that this would be a dramatic step in reform, but it would decrease costs and hassles of paper work and payments. As I discussed before the payments made to insurance companies that families would save as a result of universal health care would give citizens more coverage by enacting affordable costs. I don't think that such a large step of change is rational to consider so a compromise should be made. One site that takes a similar economic stance on the debate is called Execs Tout Universal Coverage. I believe that the process, which has produced my stance in this debate, was successful by taking a broad idea and narrowing it down.
The process of understanding that occurs over time allows opinions to change. I now understand the details of the health care argument through the research I have done to produce this blog. While researching aspects of health care I also found that my opinions on related issues were effected. In topics like stem cell research where many make an emotional appeal of whether it's supporting killing I find myself looking at the logistics of the situation instead. One source that helped me to become aware of this change was Potential for Life x2 .
Finding away to fix the American health care system is an important issue to me. Its outcome will affect the lives of millions of people including myself in a way that is beyond measure. The time it takes for an issue to take hold and for change to occur is arduous. For many years organizations have been trying to initiate a spark that would cause change in the health care system, and now the outcome seems to be quickly approaching as many presidential candidates are calling for reforms. With so much at stake it seems impractical not to be concerned with what will come of the universal health care debate.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Web's Plug on Universal Health Care
The main points of controversy that I found make up the binary positions on the universal health care debate are: how the new system will effect Americans financially, the effectiveness of a universal health care plan, and the the need for universal health care. I was able to find several sites of useful information relating to the issue, while doing research on the subject for this blog . The following is a recommended list of reliable sources that will provide further insight into each of the aspects of the health care controversy.
One article that I found interesting was published in the New Yorker Magazine. "The Moral-Hazard Myth" by Malcolm Gladwell takes an interesting view on the health care system in the Unites States. Gladwell states that the inability for some citizens to afford health care is causing for a growing difference in the way they look compared to the rest of the population who can afford care. Another point that Gladwell explains is the loyalty that so many American's have for the current health care system. As the title suggests however the main intent of the article lies in the the name "moral-hazard" that has been presented as a negative effect resulting from universal health care. Overall Gladwell provides an interesting analysis of the causes and conclusions that surround the American health care system.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is one of the most extensive sites that I found relating to the American health care debate. The site provides up to date health news including the recent proposed plans by presidential candidates, facts and statistics that have been gathered, and information on topics ranging from health coverage to the women's health policy. The Kaiser Family Foundation effectively presents all aspects of health care so that readers are equipped to evaluate the situation. The points included cover the aspects that should be considered while deciding how the American health care system should be updated. A site related to the Kaiser Family Foundation that I found both interesting and helpful was the Global Health Facts page that provides information on the health care of nations around the world, including per capita spending and much more, with the click of a mouse.
"The Testimony on Universal Health Care" by Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar is a report on their findings concerning universal health care. The effect of universal health care and ways that it could be instituted without increasing costs are outlined in the report. In their findings Sager and Socolar show how providing health care to all would actually decrease spending in the long run, and increase the quality of care. The small scale model of Massachusetts helps to give an idea of how a single-payer system of health care could work, and the information helps support the idea that it might be applied on a larger scale.
The Straight Talk is site that shows the American support for a universal health care system and the various political stances on the issue. While setting up both sides of the argument Straight Talk is also able to get across the idea that health care in America is a real issue that more and more citizens are becoming interested in. Quotes, polls, points, and facts give a brief intro into the health care debate at a glance picking out the main issues in the debate and presenting them in a clear and straight forward manner.
The rising health care costs in America is one of the reasons that health care is such a pressing issue. The one difference between America's health care system and that of other developed nations is that America depends on private health care providers. American Health Care Reform provides insight about the condition of America's health care system. The site serves to unravel the false beliefs about a universal health care system and promotes it through revealing the insurance loops of private health care providers.
Any change, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem, in the health care system cannot be accomplished by any one group alone. Coming together to make a difference is the tool that Change Now for Health proposes to use in the effort to reform the nation's health care system. Their website provides useful information on why the U.S. needs to change the current health care system. Resources on the site including current news articles on health care and real world examples support the country's increasing need for a new health care system.
Just how many American's are uninsured? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provides answers about how the number of Americans that are uninsured are rising. Tracking the course of the insurance in America through information gathered by the Census Bureau is among the ways that the site has formulated its opinions. As a conclusion the site points out key factors that have caused the dramatic climb in the number of uninsured.
The National Coalition on Health Care founded in 1990 is a non profit working to improve health care in America. NCHC gives readers a "Q&A" style web page on universal health care. Questions that the site answers start with identifying who the uninsured are and concludes in stating that increased coverage will increase life expectancy and decrease spending. The page, which was published in 2007, provides current and reliable information on the issue.
The American Medical Student Association has a recently added informational page in the form of "Universal Health Care Educational Resources." On the page readers can find reliable sources to learn more about all the varying aspects and sides in the universal health care debate. AMSA provides an unbiased approach that is there to solely educate. The approach of this page achieves a stand that is open and allows the reader to form their own opinions on the debate.
The need for universal health care is based on the rising costs of health care in the U.S. that is causing many citizen to go without health care when they can no longer afford the prices. The National Center for Policy Analysis gives insight into the reasons behind rising health care costs in an article by Devon Herrick, Ph. D is the research manager at the National Center for Policy Analysis. This site looks at the health care issue by comparing the health care market to that of cosmetic surgery. Why haven't the prices of cosmetic surgery increased similar to health care? Herrick blames differences in the markets saying,"One sector has a competitive marketplace and stable prices. The other does not." The health care market in America is complex and confusing, and counted among the reasons that health care costs continue to rise.
The importance of the health care debate in America comes from the affect that its outcome will have on the population individually. Health care affects everyone. Increasing concern for how the government will decide to run the health care system has continued to grow along side the related prices. The need, efficiency, and finance that are involved with a new plan are key factors for the government to reflect on in the upcoming election. With increasing concern and an internet connection, that allows information to be shared, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the issue that has been building up. All of the information unfortunately is not reliable. The provided links are among some of the credible sources that can be found currently about the nation's health care debate.
One article that I found interesting was published in the New Yorker Magazine. "The Moral-Hazard Myth" by Malcolm Gladwell takes an interesting view on the health care system in the Unites States. Gladwell states that the inability for some citizens to afford health care is causing for a growing difference in the way they look compared to the rest of the population who can afford care. Another point that Gladwell explains is the loyalty that so many American's have for the current health care system. As the title suggests however the main intent of the article lies in the the name "moral-hazard" that has been presented as a negative effect resulting from universal health care. Overall Gladwell provides an interesting analysis of the causes and conclusions that surround the American health care system.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is one of the most extensive sites that I found relating to the American health care debate. The site provides up to date health news including the recent proposed plans by presidential candidates, facts and statistics that have been gathered, and information on topics ranging from health coverage to the women's health policy. The Kaiser Family Foundation effectively presents all aspects of health care so that readers are equipped to evaluate the situation. The points included cover the aspects that should be considered while deciding how the American health care system should be updated. A site related to the Kaiser Family Foundation that I found both interesting and helpful was the Global Health Facts page that provides information on the health care of nations around the world, including per capita spending and much more, with the click of a mouse.
"The Testimony on Universal Health Care" by Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar is a report on their findings concerning universal health care. The effect of universal health care and ways that it could be instituted without increasing costs are outlined in the report. In their findings Sager and Socolar show how providing health care to all would actually decrease spending in the long run, and increase the quality of care. The small scale model of Massachusetts helps to give an idea of how a single-payer system of health care could work, and the information helps support the idea that it might be applied on a larger scale.
The Straight Talk is site that shows the American support for a universal health care system and the various political stances on the issue. While setting up both sides of the argument Straight Talk is also able to get across the idea that health care in America is a real issue that more and more citizens are becoming interested in. Quotes, polls, points, and facts give a brief intro into the health care debate at a glance picking out the main issues in the debate and presenting them in a clear and straight forward manner.
The rising health care costs in America is one of the reasons that health care is such a pressing issue. The one difference between America's health care system and that of other developed nations is that America depends on private health care providers. American Health Care Reform provides insight about the condition of America's health care system. The site serves to unravel the false beliefs about a universal health care system and promotes it through revealing the insurance loops of private health care providers.
Any change, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem, in the health care system cannot be accomplished by any one group alone. Coming together to make a difference is the tool that Change Now for Health proposes to use in the effort to reform the nation's health care system. Their website provides useful information on why the U.S. needs to change the current health care system. Resources on the site including current news articles on health care and real world examples support the country's increasing need for a new health care system.
Just how many American's are uninsured? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provides answers about how the number of Americans that are uninsured are rising. Tracking the course of the insurance in America through information gathered by the Census Bureau is among the ways that the site has formulated its opinions. As a conclusion the site points out key factors that have caused the dramatic climb in the number of uninsured.
The National Coalition on Health Care founded in 1990 is a non profit working to improve health care in America. NCHC gives readers a "Q&A" style web page on universal health care. Questions that the site answers start with identifying who the uninsured are and concludes in stating that increased coverage will increase life expectancy and decrease spending. The page, which was published in 2007, provides current and reliable information on the issue.
The American Medical Student Association has a recently added informational page in the form of "Universal Health Care Educational Resources." On the page readers can find reliable sources to learn more about all the varying aspects and sides in the universal health care debate. AMSA provides an unbiased approach that is there to solely educate. The approach of this page achieves a stand that is open and allows the reader to form their own opinions on the debate.
The need for universal health care is based on the rising costs of health care in the U.S. that is causing many citizen to go without health care when they can no longer afford the prices. The National Center for Policy Analysis gives insight into the reasons behind rising health care costs in an article by Devon Herrick, Ph. D is the research manager at the National Center for Policy Analysis. This site looks at the health care issue by comparing the health care market to that of cosmetic surgery. Why haven't the prices of cosmetic surgery increased similar to health care? Herrick blames differences in the markets saying,"One sector has a competitive marketplace and stable prices. The other does not." The health care market in America is complex and confusing, and counted among the reasons that health care costs continue to rise.
The importance of the health care debate in America comes from the affect that its outcome will have on the population individually. Health care affects everyone. Increasing concern for how the government will decide to run the health care system has continued to grow along side the related prices. The need, efficiency, and finance that are involved with a new plan are key factors for the government to reflect on in the upcoming election. With increasing concern and an internet connection, that allows information to be shared, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the issue that has been building up. All of the information unfortunately is not reliable. The provided links are among some of the credible sources that can be found currently about the nation's health care debate.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Future of American Health Care
Health care in American is becoming increasingly harder to come by. The growing number of American's that are found to be without health insurance gives proof of how American's are dealing with the rise in health care costs. The Campaign for America's Future gives testimony to the hardship that increasing health rates are inflicting on the American consumer. The idea that the campaign presents is that profit needs to be taken out of health care. This is one among many ideas of what needs to be changed in the current system. As dissatisfaction grows what is in store for the future of American health care? I predict that in the near future a level of universal health care will be adopted enabling the government to regulate health care prices. The government's capability to regulate the prices of health care and related goods and services will make them more affordable to consumers. Support for this alteration in the current health care system is growing. If the health care system stays the same the rates of health care and related goods and services will continue to increase at a rate that will make it difficult for citizens to obtain quality health care. The reasons that the health care costs will continue to rise according to David H. Chenoweth, author of "Worksite Health Promotion" include: cost shifting, inflation, technological advancements, high prices of malpractices insurance, practicing defensive medicine, and catastrophic cases. More Americans are feeling the effects of increasing health care costs. The future of the American health care system and the application of universal health care will be determined soon. The approaching point of action will be reached when American's need for health care will outweigh their objections of allowing increased government interference in health care.
Monday, October 22, 2007
So What's All the Fuss About?
Providing citizens with health care seems like a reasonable and good hearted act, so why is there still controversy looming from the idea? The dilemma that fuels controversy over universal health care is the mistrust of the government. American's have always doubted the government's capability to establish an efficient and effective system. Why should health care be any different? Often the belief of laissez fair is enough to prove that government involvement should be kept at a minimum for efficiency to reach its maximum level. In a market setting for example open trade without government interference will allow an equilibrium price to be set for goods and services that will best satisfy both consumers and producers. Govenment instated price ceilings and floors however can prohibit the market from reaching an equilibrium that will be the most beneficial. The involvement that the government would be entitled to by organizing a universal health care system would increase from its current state. The increase of involvement worries many citizens. Since America's beginnings there has been animosity towards unneeded government ties. Howard J. Blitz, president of the Freedom Library, gives an example of this anxiety in an excerpt from,"Government breeds animosity, not peace". The most current event that has caused citizens to question the government is America's involvement in Iraq. The World Socialist Website gives insight into the ideas of censorship and mistrust that result from the involvement. Is the government getting involved in a situation that it should leave alone? Universal health care, to many will provide one more way for the government to intervene in their lives. Increasing government involvement in any matter is a highly debatable issue especially with an issue as vital as health care. However with increasing health care costs and a continually downward sloping insurance rates some changes need to be made to ensure Americans access to affordable health care. The big question for universal health care remains. Should American's allow increased government involvement to increase the availability of health care?
Friday, October 19, 2007
A Dwindling Health Provider
Employee benefits is a major provider of health insurance in the United States. Increases in health insurance costs are hitting businesses hard. The increase in costs are making health benefits increasing unaffordable for employers. With an increase in cost, surveys show that the percent of businesses that offer health insurance to their workers has dramatically decreased in the past five years (click here for more details). Small businesses are found to be the main source accountable for the decline of health benefits. The inability to offer employees health benefits makes it hard for businesses to draw in and keep employees. In these cases it could mean that a business owner is forced to decide between providing health insurance or hiring another worker. For small businesses not offering health care benefits is a dangerous situation to be in. Without the aid of health benefits the jobs offered by the business are less appealing and it is harder for the employer to keep employees for a long period of time. When a business loses a worker they are losing time and money that went into training and hiring that individual worker as the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations explains. The story of one small business in Montana, that has decided to go on without offering health insurance to employees, gives testimony to the bind that high health insurance prices can leave small business owners in. In some forms of universal health care the price of providing health care for employers is decreased to an affordable rate. By decreasing the cost to employers of providing health insurance the government is able to require that companies provide their employees with health care. With more companies providing health insurance to their workers the health coverage of American citizens will greatly increase.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
A Complicated Relationship
Universal health care is founded on the idea that compared to other countries the United States health care system is not as effective. How do we know that the U.S. is lagging behind? The scale that these statements are based on is life expectancy. As pointed out previously and again below on a wider scale the life expectancy rate for the U.S. falls far from the expectations set by other countries. If more money in spending on health care doesn't increase life expectancy what does?
Many of the countries that show stronger efficiency in their health care systems implement some form of a universal health care system. The the current distribution of the universal health care system throughout the world is shown on the following map. Longevity of life for an individual is an important personal interest. Whether or not universal health care really will increase the United States' average life expectancy is still up for debate. Certain variables can't be controled by merely puting health resources at an accessible rate for all citizens. Factors highlighted by the US Public Health Service include: lifestyle, environmental factors, and heredity (click here for more details). Although health care only accounts for 10% of the influential factors for life expectancy the US Public Health Service predicts that it, "-has the potential to help prevent close to 70 percent of preventable deaths through intervention measures." That leaves 30 percent of preventable deaths that could not be avoided with the aid of health care. Universal health care will be able to increase life expectancy to an extent by allowing citizens to access health care services when they need them. No more putting off a visit to the doctor until the pain has become unbearable, so patients will be more likely to discover health problems early on. This will contribute to increasing an individual's ability to take care of themselves if they choose to do so. There is atleast the option to seek care with a universal health care system. Whether or not citizens choose to take advantage of this resource is up to them.
Many of the countries that show stronger efficiency in their health care systems implement some form of a universal health care system. The the current distribution of the universal health care system throughout the world is shown on the following map. Longevity of life for an individual is an important personal interest. Whether or not universal health care really will increase the United States' average life expectancy is still up for debate. Certain variables can't be controled by merely puting health resources at an accessible rate for all citizens. Factors highlighted by the US Public Health Service include: lifestyle, environmental factors, and heredity (click here for more details). Although health care only accounts for 10% of the influential factors for life expectancy the US Public Health Service predicts that it, "-has the potential to help prevent close to 70 percent of preventable deaths through intervention measures." That leaves 30 percent of preventable deaths that could not be avoided with the aid of health care. Universal health care will be able to increase life expectancy to an extent by allowing citizens to access health care services when they need them. No more putting off a visit to the doctor until the pain has become unbearable, so patients will be more likely to discover health problems early on. This will contribute to increasing an individual's ability to take care of themselves if they choose to do so. There is atleast the option to seek care with a universal health care system. Whether or not citizens choose to take advantage of this resource is up to them. Monday, October 15, 2007
Universal Health Care: Paying for the Mistakes of Others
By increasing taxes and making budget cuts to provide health care for all citizens are Americans paying for the faults of others? In the blog "Universal Health Care: Yay or Nay?" the author brings up the idea that, "Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is paid for through taxes stolen from other people." If taxes are increased to fund a universal health care system will it be increased enough to surpass the current amount families spend on health care? Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar, from the Boston University School of Public Health, use data from Massachusetts to provide a small scale example of the difference in health care costs with and without the universal health care plan. The data that was collected shows that the current expense of health care is greater than the costs of the universal health care plan. Universal health care is able to provide an actual decrease in overall costs by reducing the market power of private insurance companies, decreasing the price of health expenses like prescriptions, nursing home care, in-home care, and other out-of-pocket costs, reducing the cost to employers of providing health care benefits, and universal health care reduces the reliance on government financed health aid services like Medicare and Medicaid as the price for insurance becomes more affordable. Presidential candidate John Edwards' plan for universal health care will enable the U.S. to have universal health care without instating overall higher taxes, more details are provided by Times writer John M. Broder. Universal health care doesn't mean that individual citizens will be paying for the unhealthy habits of one another; under Edwards' plan for example health care will be much the same with reduced costs that will make health care affordable for all rather than free for all.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Universal Health Care: A Prediction Proved
In 2005 Lance Dickie from the Seattle Times predicted that Americans would become increasingly supportive of universal health care. Now in 2007 with three of the presidential candidates supporting some level of universal health care bloggers who called Lance crazy will have to bite their tongue. The gains that were discussed earlier as expanding coverage to include all U.S. citizens, decreased prices of health care goods and services, increased use of health resources, and earlier detection of medical problems will help to improve the health of Americans. Those who oppose universal health care say that it will cause increased spending, loss of jobs, increased government involvement, and a decline in quality of care. A decreasing rate of accessible health in the U.S. shows that some form of universal health care needs to be adopted in order to decrease the financial strain of paying for health care.
The accessibility of health care has decreased, shown by the increasing number of Americans that are uninsured. In 2002 the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities stated,"The total number of uninsured Americans rose from 39.8 million in 2000 to 41.2 million in 2001" since then the rate has continued to rise with the most recent estimate being 47 million as found by the National Coalition on Health Care. The increase in the number of the uninsured can be contributed to factors including a rise in the cost of business provided health insurance.
The rate of coverage provided by employers has significantly dropped due to the increase health care costs causing the rate of health coverage provided by federal insurance plans, for example Medicaid, to increase. Elise Gould explains the trend thoroughly here. The following chart by Gould depicts the decline in Employer-provided insurance and increase uninsured rate from 2000 to 2004.
A decrease in the amount of employer-provided health care makes acquiring health care harder for many working Americans who can't afford health care otherwise.
The decrease in health care coverage could be corrected by a government imposed plan. The increased use of Medicaid shows that there is a strong need for government involvement in the health care situation, and a universal health care plan that would cover all citizens would reduce the need for the third party insurance companies. With the government involvement increased in health insurance the market power of private insurance companies would decrease and the costs to employers of providing health benefits would decline. Currently the price of health care is on a steep rise.
The increase in costs can be shown through how the prices of prescription drugs have increased since 1960. As stated in a previous blog and by Michael Tanner, director of research at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation," A single-payer national health care system would come at enormous cost to American taxpayers"(as quod. in "Health Care Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"). The increase that Tanner is talking about is the belief that by increasing the number of people that have insurance, including those who can't afford it, health care costs will increase resulting in higher taxes. If those who can't afford health insurance are still receiving it from the government it is believed that the taxpayers will in essence be paying for the insurance of the poor. There are other ways that the increased coverage may be compensated for in the decreased cost of out-of-pocket and private health insurance. The California Health Care Foundation depicts the divisions of the nation's health care spending as of 2004 in a chart.
There is also a fear that universal health care will cause citizens employed by insurance companies to lose there jobs is. With a reduced need for a third insurance company the workers will be forced to find work elsewhere, which is one source of employment as Kao-Ping Chua discusses,"All reform is difficult, no matter what it is. Health care reform is no different. The question is about priorities: where there’s a will for UHC, there will be a way.
The accessibility of health care has decreased, shown by the increasing number of Americans that are uninsured. In 2002 the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities stated,"The total number of uninsured Americans rose from 39.8 million in 2000 to 41.2 million in 2001" since then the rate has continued to rise with the most recent estimate being 47 million as found by the National Coalition on Health Care. The increase in the number of the uninsured can be contributed to factors including a rise in the cost of business provided health insurance.
The rate of coverage provided by employers has significantly dropped due to the increase health care costs causing the rate of health coverage provided by federal insurance plans, for example Medicaid, to increase. Elise Gould explains the trend thoroughly here. The following chart by Gould depicts the decline in Employer-provided insurance and increase uninsured rate from 2000 to 2004.
A decrease in the amount of employer-provided health care makes acquiring health care harder for many working Americans who can't afford health care otherwise.The decrease in health care coverage could be corrected by a government imposed plan. The increased use of Medicaid shows that there is a strong need for government involvement in the health care situation, and a universal health care plan that would cover all citizens would reduce the need for the third party insurance companies. With the government involvement increased in health insurance the market power of private insurance companies would decrease and the costs to employers of providing health benefits would decline. Currently the price of health care is on a steep rise.
The increase in costs can be shown through how the prices of prescription drugs have increased since 1960. As stated in a previous blog and by Michael Tanner, director of research at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation," A single-payer national health care system would come at enormous cost to American taxpayers"(as quod. in "Health Care Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"). The increase that Tanner is talking about is the belief that by increasing the number of people that have insurance, including those who can't afford it, health care costs will increase resulting in higher taxes. If those who can't afford health insurance are still receiving it from the government it is believed that the taxpayers will in essence be paying for the insurance of the poor. There are other ways that the increased coverage may be compensated for in the decreased cost of out-of-pocket and private health insurance. The California Health Care Foundation depicts the divisions of the nation's health care spending as of 2004 in a chart.
There is also a fear that universal health care will cause citizens employed by insurance companies to lose there jobs is. With a reduced need for a third insurance company the workers will be forced to find work elsewhere, which is one source of employment as Kao-Ping Chua discusses,"All reform is difficult, no matter what it is. Health care reform is no different. The question is about priorities: where there’s a will for UHC, there will be a way.
Even under more difficult transitions, such as with a single payer system in which the private insurance industry is minimized, the country will need people to help administer the new program. People could be transitioned from the private insurance industry to the new program. UHC will create new jobs throughout the country – right now, businesses are either firing or not hiring low-wage workers because of health insurance costs, and many people stay with their current jobs just to get health insurance benefits instead of starting their own businesses"(read more here). Another idea that has formulated around universal health care is that the universal health care plan would allow employers, other than the insurance companies, to hire more workers by reducing their costs of providing health care benefits to workers.
The jobs of the already experienced insurance workers could also help to ensure that the quality and efficiency of the new system will meet expectations to help benefit citizens. The belief that the universal health care plan could produce inferior quality of health care in the U.S. is based on stories from other countries with similar systems. The blog "An Argument Against Universal Public Health Care" shares one such story of a patient treated in India for an eye infection. The idea that the quality of care provided by hospitals in America will decline is something that could be rationally avoided. Quality is based on funding, with sufficient funds the U.S. could keep the quality standard stable. The judicial system that allows for citizens to file claims against hospitals now will be in operation for similar suits to be filed in the future in order to protect citizens. The workers that help to organize the operation for the new system along with the judicial system will help to insure that the medical resources could be efficiently used and funded to avoid a decline in quality.
Universal health care will increase accessibility, but what effect will it have on life expectancy? Those who support universal health care believe that it will increase the nation's life expectancy rate. In 1999 John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D brought up the deminishing status of the United States' health care system. John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D, provide several examples of decreased life expectancy in America. Although available health care isn't the only factor that contributes to life expectancy it is a factor. In 2007 the Associated Press looked into the phenomenon that showed why the U.S. was ranked 42nd in life expectancy.
The cost of increasing accessibility seems like it should increase of the current expense, however those who support universal health care, as the Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report explains, believe the current health expenditures could pay for universal health care. Barack Obama gives a speech on how the current health care costs payed by Americans is still increasing, and in affect increasing the need for universal health care. There are many costs that could be forgone with the universal health care plan. The government could use funding to provide universal health care by eliminating these costs. A 2004 outline of excessive costs states, "Under the current system, hundreds of billions of dollars a year are wasted by health-care sellers on billing, fraud and administrative expenses. Excess profits and high CEO (and other executive) salaries at large HMOs and other health-care companies add further costs."(read more here)
Universal health care will enable stronger government involvement in the system. There are flaws in every government run system. Many question the capability of the government to be able to run a universal health care system efficiently. With health care as a topic that is very important and very personal to citizens it is fitting that they are skeptical to a decrease in their options of insurance providers.
With an increasing amount of Americans finding themselves without health insurance, as shown by the Employee Benefits Research Institute in a graph, a solution to increase access to health care needs to be found. Awareness of the faults of the current system is increasing as the Public Opinion and Research Program helps to prove,"This August 2007 tracking poll finds that health care remains the top domestic issue that the public wants presidential candidates to address in the campaign, trailing only Iraq on the public's overall priority list." (as quod. in "Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Election 2008- August 2007") Americans value an efficient and affordable health care system that is currently not being supplied.
Universal health care can offer a way for the government to provide affordable health insurance to citizens increasing accessibility and decreasing overall health care spending. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University gives a detailed example of the decrease in health spending in Maryland for the cost of a single-payer system to the state. By decreasing overall expenses universal health care will increase health care accessibility by providing affordable health insurance. A complete universal health care plan may not be the best option for the United States, however in the upcoming election presidential candidates are left to decide to what level of universal health care should be applied.
The jobs of the already experienced insurance workers could also help to ensure that the quality and efficiency of the new system will meet expectations to help benefit citizens. The belief that the universal health care plan could produce inferior quality of health care in the U.S. is based on stories from other countries with similar systems. The blog "An Argument Against Universal Public Health Care" shares one such story of a patient treated in India for an eye infection. The idea that the quality of care provided by hospitals in America will decline is something that could be rationally avoided. Quality is based on funding, with sufficient funds the U.S. could keep the quality standard stable. The judicial system that allows for citizens to file claims against hospitals now will be in operation for similar suits to be filed in the future in order to protect citizens. The workers that help to organize the operation for the new system along with the judicial system will help to insure that the medical resources could be efficiently used and funded to avoid a decline in quality.
Universal health care will increase accessibility, but what effect will it have on life expectancy? Those who support universal health care believe that it will increase the nation's life expectancy rate. In 1999 John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D brought up the deminishing status of the United States' health care system. John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D, provide several examples of decreased life expectancy in America. Although available health care isn't the only factor that contributes to life expectancy it is a factor. In 2007 the Associated Press looked into the phenomenon that showed why the U.S. was ranked 42nd in life expectancy.
The cost of increasing accessibility seems like it should increase of the current expense, however those who support universal health care, as the Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report explains, believe the current health expenditures could pay for universal health care. Barack Obama gives a speech on how the current health care costs payed by Americans is still increasing, and in affect increasing the need for universal health care. There are many costs that could be forgone with the universal health care plan. The government could use funding to provide universal health care by eliminating these costs. A 2004 outline of excessive costs states, "Under the current system, hundreds of billions of dollars a year are wasted by health-care sellers on billing, fraud and administrative expenses. Excess profits and high CEO (and other executive) salaries at large HMOs and other health-care companies add further costs."(read more here)
Universal health care will enable stronger government involvement in the system. There are flaws in every government run system. Many question the capability of the government to be able to run a universal health care system efficiently. With health care as a topic that is very important and very personal to citizens it is fitting that they are skeptical to a decrease in their options of insurance providers.
With an increasing amount of Americans finding themselves without health insurance, as shown by the Employee Benefits Research Institute in a graph, a solution to increase access to health care needs to be found. Awareness of the faults of the current system is increasing as the Public Opinion and Research Program helps to prove,"This August 2007 tracking poll finds that health care remains the top domestic issue that the public wants presidential candidates to address in the campaign, trailing only Iraq on the public's overall priority list." (as quod. in "Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Election 2008- August 2007") Americans value an efficient and affordable health care system that is currently not being supplied.
Universal health care can offer a way for the government to provide affordable health insurance to citizens increasing accessibility and decreasing overall health care spending. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University gives a detailed example of the decrease in health spending in Maryland for the cost of a single-payer system to the state. By decreasing overall expenses universal health care will increase health care accessibility by providing affordable health insurance. A complete universal health care plan may not be the best option for the United States, however in the upcoming election presidential candidates are left to decide to what level of universal health care should be applied.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Considerations
The problem with the current health care system in the United States is that the increased price of health care has reached new heights, and many citizens who are unable to adapt to the increase are left uninsured. Joanne Laurier writes, "- approximately 82 million people under the age of 65 were without health insurance for all or part of the period (2002-2003), with two thirds going without coverage for six months or longer. The ability of the sick to receive care shouldn't be a dilemma under any circumstance, but in the real world it is.
With no insurance and increasing health care costs many Americans either can't afford to go to the doctor or avoid making frequent visits. The reasoning is that since health care is so expensive care should be sought only when there is a detrimental health condition. The problem with this way of thinking is that many illnesses can be easily treated if detected early on when symptoms are mild. If patients wait until later on when symptoms become stronger often it is much more difficult for doctors to provide an effective treatment. Universal health care provides a way for all citizens to receive health care, a change that would promote the frequent use of health resources in the nation.
By allowing the government to provide universal health care to all citizens the amount of serious illnesses would dramatically decrease as more people sought medical care. With more people making frequent visits to the doctor's office ailments could be treated early on, which will increase the overall life expectancy rate for the nation. The increase in life expectancy is perhaps the most important benefit of a universal health system. If the government controlled health care it would also be able to increase its market power over pharmaceutical products. As the governments control increased the prices could be pushed down, making these products more accessible to consumers. In both ways the government's intervention would make resources more accessible to citizens. One down fall of the universal health care system is that in order to provide these goods and services would require funding.
An increase in health coverage will inevitably lead to the increase of spending on health care as it will be aiding more people. The additional funds could be found from budget cuts elsewhere in the national spending or from increased taxes, this along with other opinions of how to take on the additional costs are discussed at online by the American Medical Student Association. Planning how to fund a new health care policy brings up controversy. There are multiple ideas of where the funds could come from and who should pay for the increase. For example if taxes are increased to accumulate funds, that would imply that citizens who don't require much health care would be paying for those who do. A blog from a long term care R.N. gives a good description of how expensive the new plan is estimated to be. The increase in spending however could be a cost that the nation should take on where the advantages of health coverage would outweigh the disadvantages of cost.
Figuring out whether or not the costs of a universal health plan should be accepted is an important current issue. In the upcoming election John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all promote some form of universal health care for Americans.
A columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun Times, Lynn Sweet, writes in her blog about the three presidential candidates decisions to support universal health care. What is health worth? The controversy over universal health care is found by setting a price on an individual's health, which is why this issue is vital.
With no insurance and increasing health care costs many Americans either can't afford to go to the doctor or avoid making frequent visits. The reasoning is that since health care is so expensive care should be sought only when there is a detrimental health condition. The problem with this way of thinking is that many illnesses can be easily treated if detected early on when symptoms are mild. If patients wait until later on when symptoms become stronger often it is much more difficult for doctors to provide an effective treatment. Universal health care provides a way for all citizens to receive health care, a change that would promote the frequent use of health resources in the nation.
By allowing the government to provide universal health care to all citizens the amount of serious illnesses would dramatically decrease as more people sought medical care. With more people making frequent visits to the doctor's office ailments could be treated early on, which will increase the overall life expectancy rate for the nation. The increase in life expectancy is perhaps the most important benefit of a universal health system. If the government controlled health care it would also be able to increase its market power over pharmaceutical products. As the governments control increased the prices could be pushed down, making these products more accessible to consumers. In both ways the government's intervention would make resources more accessible to citizens. One down fall of the universal health care system is that in order to provide these goods and services would require funding.
An increase in health coverage will inevitably lead to the increase of spending on health care as it will be aiding more people. The additional funds could be found from budget cuts elsewhere in the national spending or from increased taxes, this along with other opinions of how to take on the additional costs are discussed at online by the American Medical Student Association. Planning how to fund a new health care policy brings up controversy. There are multiple ideas of where the funds could come from and who should pay for the increase. For example if taxes are increased to accumulate funds, that would imply that citizens who don't require much health care would be paying for those who do. A blog from a long term care R.N. gives a good description of how expensive the new plan is estimated to be. The increase in spending however could be a cost that the nation should take on where the advantages of health coverage would outweigh the disadvantages of cost.
Figuring out whether or not the costs of a universal health plan should be accepted is an important current issue. In the upcoming election John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all promote some form of universal health care for Americans.
A columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun Times, Lynn Sweet, writes in her blog about the three presidential candidates decisions to support universal health care. What is health worth? The controversy over universal health care is found by setting a price on an individual's health, which is why this issue is vital.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Questions Surrounding Universal Health Care
The United States has a flawed health system; many ideas for policies that will improve the current system have been proposed among them is universal health care. Universal health care is an idea that states all citizens should have the means to utilize quality health care resources of a nation without regard of their financial position. Many countries around the world have universal health care, or are attempting to form some type of universal health care. So why doesn't the United States follow suit? If the United States decides to impose a universal health care plan will this fix the problems with health care that are facing Americans today?
National health care is a provision found in countries including France, Canada, and the UK. A comparison between these three countries and the United States shows a significant difference in spending with a smaller variation for life expectancy. Logically thinking it could be predicted that a larger input would produce a larger output, but in the scenario of health care this is not the case. As presented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2004 the following table displays the differences in spending and life expectancy experienced by each of the four countries. 
Based on the chart why is it that the US has a lower life expectancy while participating in higher spending? The difference could be contributed to illnesses that are more prominent in the US than in other countries, but what matters is whether or not these factors over weigh the effect of a lack of health care coverage on the life expectancy for citizens. The answers to these questions I believe will help determine if a universal health care policy is the best plan for the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
