English
Introduction
Universal health care is defined by the World Health Organization as ensuring that health services are available to all people when they need the services. Also the health service should not be so expensive that people suffer “financial hardship” trying to pay the costs (WHO 2014). The characteristics necessary for a good health care system include care that is focused on the well-being of the patients, affordable health services and medicines, access to the very best medicines and diagnostic tools, and high quality health care providers (WHO 2014). Universal health care is an issue that has been debated inn discussed for several years. In the US the debate was motivated by the increasing costs of health care, but Hoffman (2003, 1) writing for the American Journal for Public Health reported that the call for universal health care in the US is not a grassroots movement but instead by “elite organizations.” The information is surprising because the public is the party that could benefit the most from a switch to universal health care.
Universal Health Care Pros and Cons
John M. Broder (2007) a reporter for the New York Times wrote an editorial about presidential candidate John Edwards’ Health Care Proposal that was projected to cost $120 billion a year. The cost is the amount that the proposal would add to the health care bill on the table at the time. Edward’s motivation for preparing the plan was his belief that the American health care system is dysfunctional. He believed the proposal incorporated the “concept of shared responsibility to provide universal health care. He borrowed strategies from other plans to build the Edward’s plan for universal health care. Shared responsibility in the UK takes different forms, but one example is allowing people to either sign up for the National Health Service Plan for free care or to take private health insurance policies (Brown 2004)
Edward’s suggested three different sources to fund the additional costs (a) increasing taxes on rich families, (b) fees paid by companies that do not offer their employees health care packages, and (c) improving the efficiency of health care service delivery. Broder (2007) explained that the advantages to families would include expanding Medicare, expand the federal program for children’s health. Tax credits were planned for low income families, because many people cannot afford health care. The goal for Edward’s was to eliminate private health insurance because a federal health insurance agency would be organized. The article compares the similarities between plans of earlier politicians to show the reader how they failed. The article is slanted against the Edwards plan.
Families and children from low and middle income families would benefit the most from Edward’s plan. The strong lobby for small business owners did not support the bill, because of possible costs they would have to pay. The pharmaceutical industry did not support the plan, because advertising medicine to consumers would have been made illegal. The tone of the article is favourable to Edward’s plan or at least to adopting a plan for better health care. The article did a good job talking about who would benefit and who was opposed to the plan. The strategy made me feel more supportive of the Edward’s plan because the pharmaceutical industry was against it. Also outlawing ads for medicines that are on television and in magazines is a good plan. Health care providers should decide what medicines to suggest to patients. Patients should not go to doctor’s to demand a certain medicine simply because they saw a convincing advertisement.
David Hogberg (2007) an expert on health care policy does not agree that Universal Health Care in the US would be able to stop the increase in costs for health care. Brown, a reporter for a foreign service, reported that Universal Health Care in Canada is not as good as some people think. The Canadian program forces people to wait for long periods before they can receive surgery. The debate became national after Massachusetts governor Romney in 2006 passed health care reform (Hogberg, 2006). Affordable health care costs were on the minds of the public in 2006, when 90 percent of people surveyed said that the problem was big or very big. In a later survey, 68 percent of the individuals polled wanted then President Bush and Congress to decrease health care costs. Medicare for All plans are designed to give everyone the same federal plan that now covers people over 65 years and disabled individuals. Hogberg (2007) claims that the left leaning supporters want to institute a universal health care system with Medicare in its name for increased support. In fact, a liberal economist and opinion editorial writer, Paul Krugman wrote that he like the name “Medicare for All” so people would automatically think of the federal health care program for the elderly.
Hogberg (2007) noted that the savings possible range from $200 billion per year to $440 billion per year, but the figures are misleading. The main reason is that the comparison between private and public (Medicare) costs is like comparing apples and oranges. The calculations for the private insurance sector costs include more items than calculations for Medicare (Hogberg 2007). The ability of “Medicare for All” offering higher quality health care services is also up for debate. Hogberg (2007) points out how slowly Medicare catches up to new technology and health procedures. The worse claim made by Hogberg (2007) is that only 73 percent of Medicare patients receive the correct procedures or medicines. Hogberg uses emotional anecdotes, calculated costs and polling percentages to convince the reader. Lee A. Daniels (2014), a New York journalist, uses percentages from polls to make his points, too. Daniels (2014) article was the most interesting and well-written compared to the others. Daniel’s (2014) articles moves from the surprising change in polling results on the issue of health care expansion to the issue of enjoying the benefits of health care reform while still hating the person responsible. The person responsible is President Obama, but because his skin is black the support for health care reform has fallen.
No one would end up benefitting from “Medicare for All” according to Hogberg (2007). He agrees that the current private health insurance system is becoming more expensive. One study predicts health care would equal 20 percent of the US GDP by 2016. The premiums charged for Medicare are not much lower than private insurance according to Hogberg (2007). He notes that Medicare does not control health care costs mainly due to wasteful spending. The tone of the article is negatively focused directly on the “Medicare for All” plan, but it is also not supportive of universal health care. I disagree with Hogberg and tend to agree with Krugman, because with a good design, the Universal Health Plan is the best choice. The main reason it is better than the current situation, is that the patient and the government would be in a two-way relationship about personal health care issues.
Conclusion
The most persuasive arguments were made by the pro-Universal Health Care or health care expansion, but I support that side of the argument so not everyone will be so easily persuaded. In fact, for people who are more easily persuaded by stories about how people are faring under the current situation, the pro-Universal Health articles are enough to gain their support. For people who like facts and figures, especially figures than the article by Hogbert (2007) is the most convincing. His argument is logical and the use of the figures helps a reader better understand the situation. He uses the figures to show that the difference between the current system and the “Medicare for All” are not as different as we are led to believe.
All of the articles except for one were published in 2007 or before. The earlier articles helped understand the background of the whole debate and the reasons the heath care issue is so important The articles from 2007 are interesting because the presidential campaign was in full force at that time. It was interesting to read about the candidates and their plans, knowing how the election turned out in the end. Daniels article was published in 2014. He discussed the ability of President Obama to help pass health form expansion that has helped many people who did not have health insurance before. Candidate Obama had bigger plans for health care, the reforms accomplished are not anywhere near Universal Health Care coverage. More people are covered for health care in 2014 than were covered in 2007. The trend for the future does not look good for universal coverage, because some announcers in the media are confusing people. This article is mainly about health care, but sadly racism is the reason a positive trend towards Universal Health Care seems unlikely.
References
Broder, John M. (2007). ‘Edwards details his health care proposal.’ The NY Times, 6 February 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/politics/06edwards.html?_r=0
Brown, Barry. (2004). ‘Canada’s way/ What a universal health care delivers, good and bad.’ Chronicle Foreign Service, 14 October.
Daniels, Lee A. (2014). ‘Conservatives can be callous about universal healthcare.’ The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/article_2331e05b-ff39-5c07-83e5-27f5973855f5.html
Hoffman, Beatrix. (2003). ‘Health care reform and social movements in the United States.’ American Journal Public Health January; 93(1), 75–85. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447696/
Hogberg, David. (2007). “Medicare for All’ Universal Health care would not solve the problem of rising health care costs. National Policy Analysis, September. shttp://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA561.html
Pickler, Nedra. (2007). ‘Obama calls for universal health care.’ USA Today, 25 January. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-25-obama-health_x.htm
WHO (World Health Organization). (2014). ‘What is universal health coverage?’ World Health Organization, December. http://www.who.int/features/qa/universal_health_coverage/en/
