Essay Sample on Universal Health Care System

Introduction

The adoption of the Universal Health Care system in the United States is a topic that has attracted the interest of politicians, policymakers, researchers, and public health professionals. Those who advocate for the adoption of a Universal Health Care system have provided solid reasons for their stand. First, there is a strong economic or financial case for the adoption of a Universal Health Care system. For instance, according to Health Care for All (2018), by having the best possible care at a reasonable and negotiated prices, individuals and families, employers, taxpayers, and the economy benefit financially. For individuals and families who are currently paying for private insurance, a shift to Universal Health Care system is expected to lead to decrease cost of health care while leading to increased coverage. Additionally, contributing to a single-payer fund replaces the sum of co-pays, deductibles, insurance premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses. Also, because families know the exact cost of health care in advance because the contributions are prepaid, they are in a better position to budget their expenses.

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

Save 25%

Employers are also set to accrue financial benefits if a Universal Health Care system is adopted. This is because they will be required to pay a percentage of pay role to the Universal Health Care and, consequently, benefit from having costs related to negotiation, purchase, and administration of health benefits to individual employees scrapped. Also, it is projected that contributions to a universal health care system will be less than the current cost of private insurance footed by employers. The savings accrued from shifting to Universal health care will enable businesses to improve employee remuneration, increase the number of employees, and expand their businesses. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also made "a strong economic case for universal health coverage." (2014). According to the WHO (2014), Universal Health Care cushions low-income citizens from the adverse economic and social costs attributable to health expenditures, which is responsible for impoverishing 100 million people a year globally.

A Universal Health Care system will also lower overall future health care costs. Two key reasons have been put forward as to why federally-directed, universal care system, would be lower in cost. First, adopting this system will lead to decreased administrative costs as well as reduced costs of procedures and prescriptions (Sterret, Bender, & Palmer, 2014). In support of the reduced cost of administrative expenses linked to the adoption of a universal care plan, it has been reported that administrative costs account for 31% of healthcare expenditure in the U.S. compared to 16.7% in Canada, which has a universal care system. Secondly, by adopting universal healthcare, the federal government will be in a position to negotiate lower rates for procedures and prescription drugs (Sterret et al., 2014).

Moreover, in the past few decades, the United States has reported a rapid increase in health care costs. According to American Medical Student Association (AMSA), the cost of health insurance premiums has been increasing annually by double-digit percentage points in the last five years, a two-fold to three-fold higher rates than the rate of inflation. Therefore, a rapid rise in the population of uninsured and underinsured Americans has occurred. This problem is common among low-income Americans and has been found to lead to high mortality rates.

Furthermore, when advocating for Universal Health Care system in the United States, it is essential to compare the current health care cost to that of industrialized countries, such as Canada and Germany. A comparison made by Ridic et al. (119) involving US health care system, Canada, and Germany showed that the current US healthcare system is the most expensive of all. The health care system in both Germany and Canada are single payer systems instead of multiple payer systems used in the United States. The health care systems of both of these countries give access to medical care services for all their citizens with most of the financing and regulation being provided by the federal government and limited competition in health care matters. Compared to both Canada and Germany, data has shown that the United States has a higher expenditure on medical care as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) compared to Canada and Germany. A comparison of the cost of medical care in the United States and Germany shows that as a fraction of GDP, the former spends 35% more than the later. Even though Germany is the second biggest spender in the world, the adoption of a comparable health care system by the united states would result in a 35% reduction in medical costs.

Adopting a universal health care system in the United States is necessary because of the projected decreased infant mortality. This is because evidence shows that health care costs and infant mortality are lower in countries with universal health care, e.g., Germany and Canada because their governments play a dominant role in the health care sector. Consequently, replication of Germany's and Canada's universal access to health insurance in the United States is expected to yield similar or better results.

A look at the state-level health care system further justifies the need for a Universal Health Care System (State of Indiana). For instance, the health insurance offered by the State of Indiana is a perfect example that can be used to show the inadequacies currently existing at state-level insurance systems. The State of Indiana has come up with an insurance system known as The Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) which provides to pathways of insurance cover to the residents; HIP Plus and HIP Basic. HIP Plus is the initial plan selection for all residents offering the best benefits for the members. Some of the benefits associated with HIP Plus include chiropractic, dental, and vision comprehensive benefits (State of Indiana).

Even though HIP Plus is comprehensive, it only covers individuals and families in the middle to high-income brackets. Specifically, a family of four members with a yearly income of $35,053 may qualify for HIP Plus. Couples with annual earnings of up to $22,987 may be eligible. Also, people with annual earnings of up to $16,954 may be eligible (State of Indiana). Consequently, it can be seen that individuals who do not fall within the stated income bracket fail to benefit from the comprehensive HIP Plus insurance. Because of this, there is a need to go for a universal, federally controlled, health care system which is capable of meeting the needs of all citizens irrespective of their income or socio-economic status.

The discriminatory nature of state-level insurance system can further be seen by looking at State of Indiana second insurance pathway, known as HIP Basic. HIP Basic is a fallback plan for individuals whose household incomes do not qualify them for HIP Plus. According to the State of Indiana, HIP Basic is an option for people with household income of less than or equal to 100% of the federal poverty level who cannot afford the superior HIP Plus. HIP Basic members have inferior benefits compared to HIP Plus members. For instance, they do not receive dental and vision services. Members are also required to co-pay whenever they seek treatment at hospitals. The co-payments are for staying in a hospital or for a prescription and may go up to $8 per doctor visit for prescription services and up to $75 per hospital stay. In the long term, HIP Basic may be more expensive than HIP Plus. Because of the discriminative nature of HIP, based on individual's and family's income per year, it is essential to come up with a Universal Health Care plan which caters for the health care needs of all individuals, irrespective of their income or their socio-economic status.

One of the major issues of allowing a market-driven health care system is the existence of a small number of service providers, hospitals, and healthcare in contrast to the need. Due to this, the cost of the healthcare system in the United States has persistently increased. Instead of upgrading the healthcare and delivery systems, the free market enterprise of healthcare has led to degradation of healthcare conditions and an upsurge in cost. Not only has this led to a deterioration in healthcare in most urban centres, but has also resulted in a system that raises illness prevention cost among the underinsured. Reversal of the above adverse outcomes of market-driven healthcare can only be achieved through a Universal Health Care system focused on the provision of quality and affordable healthcare rather than making profits.

Boudreau maintain that the government has turned the issue over to the private organisation and requested them to resolve the profit-motive process through which the healthcare has been shaped into. As healthcare institutions and hospitals become money-oriented devices, the number of citizens served, and the quality of care has gone down. In these corporate monstrosities, healthcare is both a utility and a product and, therefore, healthcare organisation have shunned a consumer focus and instead concentrated on the maximization of profits. Instead of creating a level of competitiveness, the current healthcare system is driven by an enormous urge for profit thus has become easier to disregard a dire response to the healthcare needs of the majority of the population but instead, healthcare institutions and providers are focused on meeting the healthcare needs of the rich. Because of this, the halve-knots in the society do not get access to quality healthcare, hence the need for a Universal Health Care system to cater for their healthcare needs.

Furthermore, one of the primary goals of healthcare modernisation is the belief that healthcare access should be a must for all, rather than those who can pay (Boudreau). Consequently, healthcare institutions should work towards eliminating high turnover rates, quick turnarounds periods for a hospital stay, lack of commitment to quality and questionable practice in connection to the treatment of the poor. The health insurance sector has also contributed to the problem. While individuals must pay high premiums for their cover, the same companies do not provide the same level of care that commensurates with the pay. Insurance coverage does not usually ensure care and companies have made it harder to get insurance without the sizeable expense. A large proportion of the middle class has subscribed to poor insurance covers, coverage that goes into effect after the contribution of a lot of money. The money that most families used as a form of economic stability, but not to ensure they have essential access to healthcare. Loss of this money by families to insurance firms put the families at risk of not meeting other basic needs, hence the need for a Universal Health Care system.

Lastly, one of the misleading information about the market-driven healthcare system and their approach in achieving the needs of most people is a notion that most citizens in the country have access to healthcare paid by their employers (Boudreau). Even if they are mandatory to pay for a portion for that insurance, and therefore the uninsured and underinsured are a small part of the population, including the poorest and the homeless, the unemployed, and the disenfranchised mass population. Based on statistics, an enormous portion of the citizens are underinsured and uninsured working families and children who cannot be covered and lack qualification to be supported by the public aid programs and at the same time do not afford to contribute health premiums. Currently, children exceeding 11.5 million lack insurance cover because their families are no able to...