Research Paper – Universal Healthcare in the USA

Universal Healthcare: A Nationwide Solution English Composition 123 Missouri Baptist University Instructor: Sharon Attach April 15, 201 1 Topic: Universal Healthcare: A Nationwide Solution . Introduction A. Universal healthcare: causes and problems B. Definition II. Body A. Healthcare should not be run as a profit driven industry. B. The United States does not have the best health care system in the world. C. Universal healthcare would not be too expensive for the ordinary person. D. United States citizens with pre-existing conditions should be able to obtain insurance. E.

United States citizens will not lose their freedom Of choice when t comes to choosing physicians. Ill. Conclusion Abstract The issue of universal healthcare has been brought to the forefront of debate in American society. This issue was, at one time, something many Americans never would have considered, but is now becoming a common need for the majority of the United States’ population. Virtually every American has faced, or knows someone who has faced some type of dilemma due to the rising cost of healthcare. There is, however, a solution. This solution will address all facts about healthcare and the problems the current system has created.

The intent in this paper will examine the facts regarding the current American healthcare system. The content will also answer many questions one may have regarding universal healthcare, and explain how the proposed solution will work for each individual. Sources for this paper include specific examples, Internet sources, and digital broadcast media. Universal healthcare is a rising issue in the United States. There are many questions people have about what many people believe to be a serious topic. These questions are sometimes answered with myth-driven ideology instead of fact-based logic.

Any time a person is told a myth about universal healthcare or the current United States’ privatized healthcare, it skews the truth and makes it harder to express. Contrary to the apprehensions many Americans have, a system of universal healthcare, or, as most other countries call it, public healthcare, would not only insure all United States citizens, but it could also greatly lower the cost of healthcare. Many Americans are now asking: Should all United States citizens have access to comprehensive, high- quality healthcare; and, is the current privatized healthcare system providing unimpressive, high-quality care for everyone?

The above questions have become the forefront on the debate for and against universal healthcare in the United States. It is the belief of many Americans that any form of universal healthcare would go against the principles and ideas on which the united States was founded. What these people do not understand, is that In 1965, the United States of America enacted Medicare and Medicaid. In 1998, Tartaric was also put into effect by the Department of Defense. These are all forms of universal healthcare in the United States. Any person currently on Medicare, Medicaid, or Tartaric, is using a form of universal healthcare.

Most of these people would not want to drop their Medicare, Medicaid, or Tartaric, because they rely on these forms of universal healthcare for doctor visits, prescriptions, etc. The real question to ask people is: What would these people do without the universal healthcare they are currently provided? According to ABSENCE. Com, 78 percent of insured Americans are currently dissatisfied with the cost of the nation’s health care system. These people are American citizens who are angry due to rising premiums and other rising sots associated with the United States’ current privatized healthcare system.

The reason behind this price increase is that insurance companies are run as a profit driven industry. (L anger, 2004) Many people have to spend more of their own money on insurance premiums and other rising costs associated with healthcare, and this leads to monetary dilemmas in American society. Valediction’s. Org writes: “Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care reverts the country from making a robust economic recovery. Every time someone has to spend money on something that could be free (like healthcare) it adversely affects the economic recovery because that money could, and should, have been spent in local grocery stores and supermarkets. Spending money at these places pumps the money back into circulation, therefore boosting the United States’ economy. Many believe the recovery will not work if people are not channeling their money back into the economy. (Miserly, 2010) Some people ask why the price of healthcare keeps rising.

Here is a statistic according to Parenthetical. Mom: Human Healthcare Michael McAllister earned approximately $4, 764,309 in 2008. Mr.. McAllister and his family also used the company aircraft for personal use. There were company contributions to the Supplemental Executive Retirement & Savings Plan and the Human Retirement & Savings Plan. He also received a once-a-year physical and financial planning assistance. These were all included in his “other compensations” for being Chief Executive Officer Of Human Healthcare. Bowman, 2009) Many people believe that high salaries and unnecessary use of company equipment cause health insurance remiss to keep rising. Would it be wrong for the American worker to ask Mr.. McAllister to try to live on $1 million a year instead of the $4. 7 million he made in 2008, when, according to CNN, the average Salary for people with bachelor degrees is only $48,351? This is what people believe to be one of the reasons behind health insurance price increases. (“Starting salaries,” 201 0) One would think that if the price of insurance increased, then the overall quality of healthcare would increase as well.

This, however, is not the case. The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care writes: In 1999, the United States was ranked 23rd in infant mortality, 20th in life expectancy for women, 21st in life expectancy for men, and 67th in overall immunization. If the United States of America had the best healthcare system, like many people believe, then one would assume that these numbers would be closer to the top. As a matter of fact, ALL of these numbers decreased from 1 990 to 1999. Some of them decreased as much as seven places in only nine years.

If people are spending more money on health insurance, they should have the right to believe the quality of their healthcare would also increase. (Battista, McCabe, 1999) Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. In the rankings, France and Italy were in first and second in rankings; the United States, however, ranked 37th when compared to other nations. The Commonwealth Fund has recently compared the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data.

It issued its latest report in May of 2010. This report ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations (Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Some people wonder what the difference is between these nations and the United States. It is common knowledge that the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not provide public healthcare for all of its citizens.

This would lead many to believe that part of the reason for the low quality the United States’ healthcare system provides is due to the lack of public healthcare. (universal health care,” 2011) People may wonder whether or not the costs associated tit universal healthcare would be greater than what Americans are currently paying for their privatized health insurance. The facts from previous census information collected by the Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care show that people in the United States spend at least 40 percent more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized country.

Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office also show that a form of universal healthcare, known as single-payer healthcare, would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite the fact that this single-payer insurance would cover all currently uninsured people and would increase health care benefits. (Battista, & McCabe, 1 999) According to Hallucinogenic. Net, 75 percent of all healthcare dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, high blood pressure, and cancer.

Many of these conditions can be prevented through exercise, regular check-ups, and other preventative actions taken by individuals. With the United States’ current privatized healthcare, people are not told that they need to take care of themselves in order to stay healthy. Many professionals consider France to have the perfect universal Healthcare system. Bloomberg Businesslike writes, “Since 1 945 the county (France) has built a widespread network of thousands of health- care facilities, called Protection Maternal et Infantile (MI), to ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care.

Children are evaluated by a team of private-practice pediatricians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, and social workers. When parents fail to bring their children in for regular checkups, social workers are dispatched to the family home. Mothers even receive a financial incentive for attending their pre- and post-natal visits. ” (“The French lesson,” 2007) France has gone as far as giving its citizens monetary’ compensation to ensure they stay healthy. (“Health care statistics,” 2011) Free medical services would encourage patients to practice important preventive medicine.

People would also inquire about problems early, when treatment would be less extensive than if they were to wait for the disease to take full effect. Patients currently avoid physical examinations and other preventive measures because of the costs associated with these actor visits. Due to the fact that many people are uninsured and those who do have insurance face high deductibles, many Americans do not go to the doctor for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. This, in turn, ignores health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether before they become major illnesses.

Things like routine physical examinations, mammograms, and HIVE tests could prevent major problems. Whenever people avoid routine preventative practices, it not only affects the health of the patient, but it also effects the overall cost of the healthcare yester. The cost of preventive medicine is only a small fraction of the cost of a full blown disease. A universal healthcare system would get rid of the excuse patients have for not visiting a medical professional. Once these patients finally go to their doctors, the doctors tell them what is wrong.

What happens if the diseases they are diagnosed with are considered pre-existing conditions? Alex Lange, a 4-month-old, was denied health insurance because he was in the 99th percentile for height and weight for a baby his age. This, according to pediatric guidelines, makes him technically obese. (Some insurers consider obesity a pre-existing condition for which they can limit or deny coverage. ) The breast-fed infant from Colorado was born at a normal 8 1/4 pounds and grew to 17 pounds in just a few months.

This 4-month-old baby was denied coverage due to a “pre-existing condition” over which he had no control. (“7 health insurance,”) Even if one does not have a pre-existing condition, many people are under the belief that United States citizens would lose their freedom of choice when it comes to choosing physicians. This, however, is not the case. If the United States were to model the French latherer system, which is considered by many experts to be one of the best in the world, United States citizens would be able to choose their own doctor.

According to Bloomberg Businesslike, the French system is very similar to the United States model. This reform, based on France’s experience, might work in America. French citizens can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. The doctors in France are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. Many French doctors, in fact, are self-employed. Victor G. Eroding is the professor of health policy and management at New York University. He says, “The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage… (without) reorganizing the entire system. (“The French lesson,” 2007) The above paragraphs imply that, not only would United States citizens be able to choose their own doctors, but that the healthcare would be cheaper than the current privatized healthcare system in the United States. The above paragraphs imply that this nationwide solution would also improve health coverage, and give people with pre- existing conditions the ability to see doctors and get the help they deserve thou having to pay thousands, or even hundreds of thousands in medical bills. These paragraphs also imply that there is a solution for the healthcare dilemma the United States currently faces.

This solution will have to address the cause of the price increases in the current system. It will also have to consider how the high cost of healthcare has affected the United States citizen as well as determine who benefits from the current privatized healthcare system, and for whom this system is detrimental. In order for the United States to make any plans for universal healthcare reform, it will first deed to address the cause of the cost increases involved in the United States’ privatized healthcare. Health care costs have been rising for several years. According to the U. S.

Department of Health & Human Services, expenditures on healthcare in the United States surpassed $2. 3 trillion in 2008. This is more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990, and over eight times the $253 billion spent in 1980. As previously stated in this paper, Human Healthcare Michael McAllister earned approximately $4,764,309 in 2008. This is one hundred times what the average person with a bachelor degree earned that same year. It would be fair for one to say that the reason for the insurance price increase is the high salaries and unnecessary use of company equipment. Bowman, 2009) People wonder how the higher price of healthcare has affected the average United States citizen. Joel Chaff, a Georgetown Township insurance agent, tells about his experiences. Golden Rule insurance company raised the monthly cost of healthcare from $253 to $353. Chaff had to compare companies in the hope Of finding a lower-cost remedy. Rate increases have hit many individual and small-group plans hard, many agents say. Chaff told the Grand Rapids Press, “A lot of people are hopping around. Or they are going to higher-deductible policies to help keep their costs in line. Chaff said most policy renewals are coming in at 20 percent to 35 percent increases. One example of this is a company with about 10 employees with Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. This company’s rate rose from SSL ,311 a month to $1,583, a 21 percent increase. People have to shop around, or drop coverage altogether, to counteract the price hikes in the private healthcare plans. (Thomas, 2011) People wonder what the United States government can do to fix these problems associated with its current revisited health plan.

In the United States, a single payer system would resolve what many experts believe to be the most serious problems, which are cost and access. Recent studies have also shown that a single payer plan would be economically feasible. In 1991, for example, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budgeting Office (COB) issued reports stating that a single payer system similar to that of Canada would pay for itself due to these practices: reduced administrative costs, as well as having universal access to healthcare, and, most importantly, preventative care.

Palmer, 1999) One possible solution to the healthcare dilemma in the United States that has been advocated by some healthcare experts is to simply expand Medicare. Medicare is an existing and highly successful public program which could be extended over the entire population instead of just the elderly. This would greatly decrease the administrative costs of healthcare due to the fact that Medicare uses approximately five percent of revenue on administrative costs. The current privatized system uses almost seventeen percent of revenue on administrative costs.

Many people would believe that it makes sense to Penn less than a third on administrative costs if it is possible. If you include this in with the savings of no duplicate paperwork and preventative care, it greatly lowers the overall cost Of health insurance for each individual. (Ackley, & Hoffmann, 2010) As part of their rejection of the secular world, the Amiss choose to go without health insurance or Medicare. In places like Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where there is a concentrated community of Amiss, they send representatives to the local medical centers to negotiate a discount. No deal, no patients,” the Amiss representative recently told Lancaster health officials. The Amiss community, for decades, has pooled resources to pay for medical care. Due to practical and legal reasons, the Amiss solution to health care might not work for everyone. One, however, has to applaud their resourcefulness and their commitment to help one another when in need. Many ask, shouldn’t the United States citizen have enough common courtesy to help another human being when that person genuinely needs the help? One of the main points of the solution for America’s healthcare dilemma is the use of preventive medicine.

As stated earlier in this paper, most of healthcare budgets are spent on chronic sissies that are preventable. It is really important to work on preventive disease rather than stressing the treatment of chronic diseases. The way to do this is through education of the population. The united health plan also needs government incentives in order to make people remain fit and in shape. If people remain in the ideal weight, they will be given some rewards. If someone is obese and they lose the weight and their IBM drops below “technically obese,” they should give these people some other reward.

This is a very important investment for the United States. Many things are required o help people remain in shape. These include: health education, incentive provision and even setting punishments, like no smoking areas. If the solution to the United States’ healthcare dilemma were easy and obvious, it would have been installed many years ago. When the United States government decides what to do, it needs to not only consider cost, but it needs to consider the patient and the care he/she receives. The government also needs to consider whether or not healthcare should be run as a profit driven industry.

Once it does this, it needs to improve the healthcare given by physicians and actors. The United States government also needs to consider giving people with pre-existing conditions healthcare, as well as letting its citizens choose their own doctors. The government needs to find a much lower cost for healthcare in order to make it available for everyone lastly. If the United States government considers all of these problems with the current privatized healthcare system, it could institute a very effective and popular united health system. The rising issue of universal healthcare in the United States is a highly debated topic.