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.
4 comments:
Universal health care seems like a suitable solution to the increasing cost of health care and the number of individuals who are uninsured. This statement is appalling, "- 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.". There is no reason for health care to be so expensive, that the average citizen avoids going to the doctor. The benefits of universal health care are very evident and would improve the overall health of our citizens. The problem arises when you consider how to provide the funds for Universal health care. As a insured citizen who can afford health care and have not previously needed a lot of medical attention, the thought of increased taxes means that I am paying for someone else's health issues. However, at any time, I could be diagnosed with a life-threatening illness and need support. I think Universal health care is a good option, however I feel that the funds need to come from various sources, not just an increase in taxes.
Universal Health care seems very idealistic to me. The fact that everyone in the nation is getting health care from one source is unlikely to be successful and I feel like would cause problems. The government funding would give a general, low-budget insurance coverage to each person. Because they have to fund the entire nation each person would most likely not get the most adequate health care. This mass production of health care would most likely give no incentive for doctors to provide sufficient healthcare for everyone. There is no advantage to give any extra effort for one person compared to another.
Also, I dont really understand how you expect the country to pay for healthcare. Where is this money going to come from....the idea for universal healthcare is a good idea but is unrealistic.
Erin,
The funding for a universal health care system would not need to come completely from an increase in taxes. For example when taking into consideration the increasing need for Medicaid (a federally funded system)there will no longer be a need for Medicaid when universal health care is instated. In this way the funds previously put toward Medicaid could be used toward universal health care.
darfur,
What do you meant by the "mass production of health care"? For doctors the incentives will not change. Universal health care describes a way of providing health care for all citizens. In this manner the need for doctors will increase as they will have more patients. The salaries of doctors will remain unchanged also, because the per capita income will increase rather than decrease allowing for physicians salaries to remain constant. As for the attention that doctors give to their patients, they will have less limitations to their capabilities due to the break down of financial barriers, also would you want for a doctor to have incentive to pay a patient more or less attention based on financial stability? The system should be based on the need and severity of the complication rather than the size of the check that a doctor will receive. Universal health care can be funded in a number of ways and in the long run will save the government money. Citizens are already paying for private insurance and out-of-pocket health costs, with universal health care many of these will be eliminated or reduced. Also funds could be pulled from the elimination of Medicaid and other government funded health care programs. The elimination of health care benefits for businesses would also allow employer's to increase wages or higher more workers. From these measures citizens along with the government will be able to pay for universal health care.
Post a Comment