The health care system of America has been declining, and over the years, discussions about how to address the said problem has been going on. According to reports, there are several other factors to this issue that should make the health care system one of the country’s priorities. Among Western countries, the United States were found to be spending more on health care than any other progressive nations. Compared to Canada, which was found to have the second highest spending in terms of health care, but in 1990, America has surpassed Canada’s spending by 44% (Cicconi and Strug). This wouldn’t have been so much of a problem if the health care being provided is worth the price that the government, private companies, and the employees are paying. However, one of the most controversial issues in the health care is that the quality of care that is being provided is plummeting despite the exorbitant amount that is being paid. In reality, America is not faring better in health care than those other countries who are spending less for their health care. These issues, when taken together, points out to the need for a national health care program that would respond to these problems and more.
There are several reasons why these problems have come up and developed rapidly until it got out of hand. One would be the current health care system in the country. While the system for delivering health care in America is unique, the system of financing it is the problem. Several progressive countries now have national health insurance programs in place which is tax-funded, and almost all legal citizens in those countries have free access to health care, where they could get regular routine checkups and basic health services. In America, on the other hand, the financing for the health care is largely based on insurance coverage. Most employees in the country are under the employer-based insurance, wherein the employer pays the majority of the insurance premium, while the employee pays a deductible when the time comes that the policy is used (Cicconi and Strug). In the event of losses, the employer and the employee would then share the payment. This system presents a problem for the unemployed, especially those elderly people and the disabled as, obviously, they won’t be covered by this policy. In order to address this problem, the government has public insurance programs, Medicaid and Medicare, where Medicaid gives grants to states that would then be used to provide insurance to people beyond the certain level of income, while the Medicare, on the other hand, provides voluntary medical insurance for the elderly (Cicconi and Strug). Despite these programs, there are still many Americans who are uninsured because there are those who are employed, but their companies don’t offer insurance, and naturally, insurance which are not tied to employment will be even more expensive that majority of the population won’t be able to afford them. There are others who are also employed, but their income does not fall to the income level required for them to qualify to apply for Medicaid. Despite these challenges, they can still get access to health care, but their expenses are incurred, and are eventually paid for by every sector of the society.
These problems, in a nutshell, are caused by two major factors: the uncontrollable increase of health care costs, and the limited access to care (Kerrey). The increased cost of health care services has already threatened the salary of working employees, the savings of the retirees, and the budget of the government. In the same way, the more expensive these health care services go, the more difficult it will be for people to access health care. With the health care services escalating exponentially, firm owners have started reducing the insurance benefits they are offering, while some take it out altogether. With the assistance gone, it is possible that people would choose not go to doctors for what they perceive to be ordinary illness because they would have to pay for all the expenses. Preventive care becomes nonexistent, while what could have been simple illnesses escalate and become serious, which would then call for higher expenses. This situation places the health of the whole community in danger as diseases which go untreated may develop into something more serious and expose the people to it (Brown 59). In the past years, this has been observed already, as survey shows that those who enter the hospitals do so for treatment related to pregnancy conditions. 5 to 10 percent of the total number of uninsured seek treatment for different conditions such as respiratory problems, digestive, circulatory, problems with the nervous system, or those with muscle/bone problems (Cicconi and Strug).
Looking at all these problems highlight the importance of why the country should adopt a national health care program that would ensure that the citizens won’t be exposed to different illnesses that would undermine the community’s overall health and risk the competitiveness of the whole country. A sick country does not only affect the health care industry, but all aspects of the country as well. Once a national health care program is developed and successfully implemented, all families, whether they be uninsured or insured, taxpayers, ad emergency physicians will have insurance. However, there are many things that the government has to consider and look into before this becomes a reality. By looking at some nation’s system, several valuable information can be gained. Most European countries implement a mix of both private and public insurance policies, wherein the private insurances mainly cater to the wealthy. Socialized medicine, or that state wherein “the government owns, operates, and finances health care delivery” (Cicconi and Strug) appeared to only be implemented in the United Kingdom. Britain, on the other hand, follows a single source financing in terms of health, where their funds for health care coming from taxation, which is then being managed by the Department of Health and Social Security. British people and legal residents can then get to access health care universally for free. Canada, on the other hand, mandated coverage for all Canadians without the citizens paying. This was made possible by the Canadian Health Act in 1984, wherein the funds for the health would come from collective taxes and will be distributed to provinces as long as they comply with the requirements, such as universal coverage of the population, portability of coverage, comprehensive coverage of services, and reasonable access to services without direct payment, to name a few (Cicconi and Strug). Physicians, on the other hand, get paid based on a fee-for service basis which follows a fee schedule which was agreed upon by both the physicians’ associations and the provincial governments (Cicconi and Strug). Among all these countries, Britain and Canada seem to have the most successful health care programs implemented, despite several issues that they had to face. One of the major differences between the U.S. and Canada and Britain is that the U.S. has what is called a multiple payer approach generally dominated by private organizations, instead of Canada and Britain’s publicly financed NHI system (Cicconi and Strug). Several other issues can be identified when deeper analysis is done on all these countries health care system. However, having an NHI system which gets its funds from taxes paid by the citizens seem to be a crucial factor.
The problem of health care in America is one of the most pressing issues that need attention and proper solution. It is the health of the people which are at risk, and if it is not addressed right away, the problem might escalate again until it becomes even more difficult to solve. The problem is upon the Americans, and out of some of the possible solutions explored, adopting a national health care program seems to hold its merits. As such, this possibility should also be taken into consideration and work out its details to make it work when applied in the U.S.
Works Cited
Brown, Lance. “Why the US Should Adopt a Universal Health Care Coverage Program.” The
California Journal of Emergency Medicine 3. Web. 30 Apr 2016.
Cicconi, Lora and Keri Strug. “Universal Health Care in the US.” Ethics of Development in a
Global Environment. 25 May 1999. Web. 30 Apr 2016.
Kerrey, Robert. “Why America Will Adopt Comprehensive Health Care Reform.” The American
Prospect. Web. 30 Apr 2016.
“Major Characteristics of U.S. Health Care Dalivery.” Subsystems of U.S. Health Care Delivery.
Web. 30 Apr 2016.
