Does America Need A Single-Payer Health Care Plan? - Essay Sample

Introduction

The idea of a government-sponsored health care plan otherwise renowned as the single-payer system is contentiously debatable and continues to infiltrate numerous healthcare discussions across the United States. According to Clemmitt, the health-care reform has been a top agenda in Washington. The Democrats and the Republicans have always differed in terms of the health care agenda. The Democrats have always supported a universal health care system in the belief that managed care would improve the quality and reduce costs for all Americans (Kennedy and English). On the contrary, the Republicans support the need for health care choices for Americans as well as the need for reforms (Kennedy & English). As such, the current multi-payer system is inefficient because more than 45 million Americans do not have medical and health cover (Clemmitt). In the developed and wealthy nations, America lags behind in terms of a universal health care plan. The health care costs and spending have skyrocketed in the last few decades. For many people in the United States, health care is an unattainable luxury. A single-payer health insurance plan would bridge the gap between Americans and health care thus diminishing the financial burden on patients, ensuring coverage stability, and promoting economic growth.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A single-payer health care system would reduce the health and medical costs. It would also enhance discipline among insurers by amending their cost policies to make care affordable to all Americans (Abelson). Currently, health care insurers in the US have locked people out of insurance coverage especially individuals and small businesses. Medicare and Medicaid have failed to provide affordable care to all because individuals have to choose different premiums. Furthermore, people in formal employment are forced to stick to a particular insurance coverage paid by the employer making it even difficult to shift jobs. Jacob S. Hacker, a University of California, Berkeley professor argues that a single-payer platform would help private insurers to provide a wide array of flexible benefits while working with hospitals and physicians to compete with the federal plan (Abelson). The single-payer health care plan would, therefore, promote better services at affordable prices to Americans from all backgrounds.

The single-payer system is the most practical and cost-effective way of providing quality health care service and delivery. Medicare, a federal initiative to provide insurance coverage for people aged sixty-five and above and the disabled has proven that a federally managed care system can work. In terms of administrative costs, Medicare has proven to only health insurance program in American that is efficiently managed. With a government-managed plan supported by taxes, the single-payer system can reduce the bureaucracies created by the private market. Research indicates that private insurance is founded on complex plans that are costly in administrative terms (Bartlett and Steele 4). Therefore, instead of political bickering that America is not ready for a single-payer system and that the change is expensive, a universal system offers unthinkable benefits and savings (Kristoff). It also ensures that low-cost preventive health care is available to all. Instead of denying a certain proportion of the population from insurance cover, a universal system would ensure that the burden of care is well-distributed without raising taxes for the middle-class and the high-class. For example, critics argue that the current system of health care insurance places a high burden on middle-income Americans because of increased government subsidies. However, a single-payer system will ensure that people leave hospitals when they are cured or ready to go home as opposed to the current situation where insurance firms limit hospital stay among patients.

On the contrary, critics of the single-pay system argue that the form of health care has failed in other countries such as Canada. According to McDonald Canada has a long waiting list for specialized care such as MRI and CT scans. Furthermore, in 1999, 25 emergency rooms in Toronto hospitals were closed to patients irrespective of their illness severity. Apart from that, the Fraser Institute based in Vancouver reported that 170,000 people were not covered because they had not paid the insurance premiums stipulated by the province of British Columbia in the 1997-98 (McDonald 2). Therefore, the single-payer system has not worked efficiently elsewhere. On the other hand, critics argue that the single-payer health care plan is similar to managed care because health and medical decisions are made without a close connection with the consumers. According to a study carried by Deloitte and Touche, consumers were unsatisfied with managed care (McDonald). 62% of the respondents reported that Hospital Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) make it harder to see doctors. The same study also reported that 61% of the participants claimed that HMOs reduce the time patients spend with physicians (McDonald 3). Since managed care inflates health-care costs, a single-payer system could meet the same fate leading to even underutilized services according to opponents of the single-payer plan.

Another argument against the single-payer health care plan is that the system has shown its ability to empower the choice of patients and control costs. As a result, patients should make their own choices in terms of access to health and medical care. Furthermore, there is a fear that physicians would be underpaid (Clemmitt 4). In light of this argument, it is feared that public initiatives and plans are underfunded leading to cuts particularly to health care providers. Besides, it is feared that the government would exert price controls that would face out private insurers.

On the contrary, critics are misinformed about the purpose of a single-payer plan. The plan would be funded by taxes collected from the American people ensuring that all Americans have access to health care. The government plan would ensure fair competition among providers, improved health care services, and delivery. Most importantly, the single-payer plan would control medical costs that have continuously increased making access to insurance cover a luxury to many of the underinsured people. In addition, the efficacy of a federal plan would involve negotiations between doctors, hospitals and the government to promote a common ground with commercial insurers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a single-payer health care plan would bridge the financial gap experienced by patients because it would promote access to healthcare for all. The current system has overburdened the consumer with increased costs and rising premiums. However, through a tax-supported plan, the federal government would ensure the millions of uninsured Americans gain access to medical and health cover. Furthermore, the system would ensure improved quality delivery and fair competition with commercial insurance companies. A single-payer system does not in any way interfere with the choices and preferences of the patients. It has proven to keep costs in check even administrative-wise and could relieve Americans from the increased tax burdens due to cost overruns and expensive health and medical care.

Works Cited

Abelson, Reed. "Many Concerns About Health Insurance For All". Nytimes.Com, 2009, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/health/policy/25medicare.html?ref=health. Accessed 8 Apr 2018.Bartlett, Donald L., and James B. Steele. "The United States Needs a National

Health Insurance Policy." Does the United States Need a National HealthInsurance Policy?, edited by Nancy Harris, Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010368202/OVIC? u=oceancc&sid=OVIC&xid=06c0b2fd. Accessed 7 Apr. 2018. Originally published in Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big

Business and Bad Medicine, Doubleday, 2004.Clemmitt, Marcia. "Health-Care Reform". CQ Researcher, 2009, pp. 693-716., http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2009082800. Accessed 8 Apr 2018.Kennedy, Patricia and Marlanda English. "Health Insurance: An Overview." Points of View:

Health Insurance, 31 Mar. 2017, p. 1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=23408857&site=pov-live.Kristof, Nicholas D. New York Times, Latest Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y.[New York, N.Y] 05 Nov 2009: A.35.

MacDonald, David C. "The United States Does Not Need a National Health Insurance Policy." Does the United States Need a National Health Insurance Policy?, edited by Nancy Harris, Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints In Context