The United States health care policy needs to be altered so that it can accommodate all citizens of this country, including both those that can and those that cannot financially afford health care or health insurance. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care plan or guarantee health care as a right of citizenship. Although many suggest a universal health care program, such as the one implicated in the 30 other industrialized nations including Canada or Britain, a closer look should be taken at this idea of universal health care before a plan is put into action. A better solution to reform United States health care is for the government to provide preventative health care and allow the citizens to take responsibility of the rest for their health care needs. This will consist of dividing medical care into public, private, and non-profit sectors.
In the United States, over 90 percent of citizens believe that the health care system should endeavor a fundamental change (Brooks). Also, over 48.5 million people in our country do not have health care insurance and of that number 21 percent are under the age of 18. The United States also ranks 23rd in infant mortality, 20th in life expectancy for women, and 21st in life expectancy for men out of other countries (Battista). According to the World Health Organization, the United States health care system was ranked 37th in 2000. The Institute of Medicine has even noted that “The United States’ health care system fails to deliver consistent, high-quality health care to its citizens, and without a major overhaul the problem will continue.” (“Data and Statistics and Programmes and Projects: Facts Sheet.”).
Universal health care is one solution proposed to solve the problems defined above. But a universal health care system in which the government supplies all citizens with full access to medical services or a health care plan is not necessarily the solution. This system would not guarantee health care, which are the services that are utilized by people for the prevention, treatment, and control of diseases and illness’ (Hogberg).
There are many faults with universal health care programs though, as seen in Canada’s and Britain’s systems. The Canadian Supreme Court has even admitted that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” According to a journal in Clinical Oncology “more than 20 percent of potentially curable lung cancer patients became terminally ill while on the waiting list.” Also, three patients in need of heart surgery in Canada died as they suffered on a waiting list (Hogberg). The waiting time for serious operations in these nations is shocking and obviously not a realistic solution to the healthcare problem. Tyler-Anne Hauss, who lived in Canada from 1998 to 2001, describes the Canadian health care system as frustrating and unorganized. Her experience with their health care system included having to wait in waiting rooms to see a doctor because their system works on a first come first serve basis. Her family needed a prescription for any medication that people in the United States could buy over-the-counter, such as aspirin or cough medicine. Canada’s health care system is so complicated that when Hauss’ little brother developed a benign tumor on his shoulder, her mother returned to the United States to have it removed as soon as possible. The wait time for his surgery in Canada would be over nine months. (Hauss). The medical advancement and technology has not progressed in these countries as compared to what has been achieved in America. The knowledge and advancement of health care in the United States is one of the best because of innovative research, cutting-edge surgical procedures, and avant-garde approaches to treatment of diseases and illnesses (Gay).
Another problem with universal health care is the stigma created, suggesting it is acceptable to live off the government. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have also given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government, not attempting to better their lives with the opportunities offered. This is America: the land of opportunity. If people decide not to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer, then why should they reap the benefits, such as full access to health care?
If a universal health care plan that gave full access to all health care was implemented, funded by the tax dollars of citizens, it would only further the ideology that it is acceptable to live off of our government and would ultimately hurt our nation. That implies that people who have decent jobs will be paying for the insurance of people that do not have enough money to provide health care for themselves or for their families. There would also be a tax cut in things such as education and defense. In America, everybody has an opportunity to have an education and obtain a job that offers insurance; some people just choose not to take advantage of this. Even if your job does not offer insurance, there are other options such as being self-insured by companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Another problem with health care in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people take the appropriate steps to receive health care, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered invalid, and then being denied. An infant was turned down by its insurance for cerebral palsy rehabilitation because the skill of walking was not a previously learned skill (Colliver). Incidents such as this one are the reason why the government should step into the world of health insurance and make laws regulating their prices and their claims that they reject. This would allow for everyone that makes a reasonable income to be able to afford insurance and benefit from the health care that it is suppose to provide. If the government was to oversee these problems with insurance companies, then it would greatly improve the health care system in the United States.
Although there are many faults, there is also a positive side to universal health care. A majority, 56 percent of the American public, believes that universal coverage would be more beneficial to this country than the current system (Butler). A universal health care system would also be a more cost efficient way to go about health care in the United States. At this moment, America spends over 40 percent more on health care than any of the other industrialized countries that have a universal health care system (Battista). By 2016, health care is going to account for one out of every five dollars spent by the United States government (Butler). Also, the people that live in Canada, which has a universal health care system, “have better care, better health, and less expensive care,” according to Steve Prime (Prime).
There needs to be a compromise in the responsibility for the health of the people of the United States that is shared between the citizens and the government. For example, health care could be divided into a private and public sector to accommodate the needs of the different financial levels in this country. To promote the ‘general welfare’ of the citizens of this country, the government should provide a health care program that helps out with preventative measures of disease and illness. This universal health care program will only provide routine checkups and doctor appointments to citizens. It will also provide health education classes to citizens. This public sector of health care will be provided to all citizens, no matter what their income level is, and will be accessed through public facilities, such as doctor offices and hospitals.
A private sector of health care will also remain instilled, which includes private insurance that is accessed through private hospitals and doctor offices. This private health care can be obtained through private insurance the same way that health care insurance companies work presently. An individual can purchase as much coverage as they deem necessary, which will pay for all health expenses besides routine, preventative health care. These extra health expenses include situations such as surgery, braces, and specialty doctors, such as a chiropractor or gynecologist.
France’s health care system is also based off of a system that is a mix between private and public health care. This health care plan, where every citizen has access to basic coverage provided by the government, is “similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France’s experience might work in America.” (Capell). The World Health Organization also ranked France as first in regard to their health care system, while the United States came in right in front of Cuba and Slovenia at 37th. In France, the doctors can afford to work for the government, for a fraction of the income that doctors earn in America. They are able to comfortably live off of this income because they do not have any student loans to pay back because the government is paying for their education (Capell). This is an issue that would need to be addressed by the United States in order to attract doctors to work for the government, where they will not receive nearly as much income as if they were in private practice. This could be solved by giving grants to students in medical school in exchange for an agreement to work for the government for a certain amount of years.
The theory behind the private and public sectors of health care and health insurance would be that the government would teach the citizens how to live a healthy lifestyle while utilizing preventative measures of health care. The basic needs of health care, which consist mostly of preventative health care, are the most effective way to prevent serious health problems. They are one of the most important steps that an individual can take in order to stay healthy. Some of the most expensive and disabling illnesses, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, respiratory diseases, and cancers, can usually all be prevented through knowledge and avoidance of risk factors. These risk factors include smoking tobacco, having high blood cholesterol and blood pressure, being physically inactive, which leads to being overweight or obese, and not managing diabetes. All of these conditions can be preventative through individual responsibility and basic health care. The World Health Organization believes that health care systems should focus more on preventative health care so that the amount of health care needed for acute problems can be reduced. This organization issued a statement saying “Given that many conditions are preventable, every health care interaction should include prevention support. To promote prevention in health care, awareness raising is crucial to promote a change in thinking and to stimulate the commitment and action of patients and families, health care teams, communities, and policy-makers.” (“Data and Statistics and Programmes and Projects: Facts Sheet.”).
If the United States government was to give the basic resources and knowledge of a healthy lifestyle to its citizens, then they would be promoting the ‘general welfare’ of the population. If situations were to arise in the health of a citizen, especially if it was caused by self-afflicting behaviors, then it would then be the responsibility of the individual to cover their own health expenses. It is the government’s responsibility to help prevent illness and disease through preventative health care, but it is not under any circumstance the government’s responsibility to pay for the health mistakes of an individual. John Gay, an editorialist for USA Today, writes: “If there is a universal “right” to some kind of care, it needs to be limited in scope and cost and balanced with responsibility to prevent and pay. That is, people must be held responsible to avoid self-destructive behavior and pay their own way if they don’t comply.” (Gay). The health of an individual can be controlled by that individual. Reduced rates in heart problems has been mostly contributed to changes in behavior, such as healthier diets, increased regular exercise and activity, and reduced cholesterol and blood pressure levels (Stewart).
Some people really are just in an unfortunate situation where they cannot obtain health care, such as the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. Statistics show that an outstanding 21 percent of the uninsured are below the age of eighteen (Battista). This is a big reason of why a form of universal health care that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, it does not mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no health care. If covering the expenses of one’s serious medical problems was not planned for through private health insurance, there are always other resources that these people can turn to for financial assistance. For example, the United States has government-run programs such as Medicaid and Medicare that are specifically utilized for health care. Medicaid and Medicare are programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which are restricted to people of certain income levels and certain eligibility requirements and they “can make it possible for you to get the care that you need so that you can get healthy – and stay healthy.” (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).
Another solution that is very accessible in the United States is charities. According to Voluntary Health Organizations: A Guide to Patient Services, there are hundreds of voluntary health organizations that are able to assist Americans with many various diseases and illnesses, both through support emotionally and financially (Scheinberg). My grandmother recently passed away from lung cancer, and all of her medical expenses were covered through a local church charity group. It was the first charity group that my family approached about the financial situation and they embraced the idea with an open heart. There are also many nonprofit organizations, such as St. Judes Hospital, who provide health care for situations where families cannot afford it.
Overall, I think full access universal health care would not be the best answer to the crisis over health care that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of universal health care, such as one that only covers basic health care needs, especially preventative care, should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens completely free health care will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistance program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. Health care in the United States should be reformed, so that the government provides preventative health care and allow the citizens to take responsibility of the rest for their health care needs. This can be obtained by dividing health care into public, private, and non-profit sectors.
Works Cited
Battista, John R. “The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States.” Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. 4 June 1999. 14 Apr. 2008. <http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm>.
Brooks, Janet. "America poised on the precipice of health reform." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 177.10 (06 Nov. 2007): 1170-1171. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Cooper Lib. Clemson U. 15 Apr. 2008 http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27236815&site=ehost-live.
Butler, Kelley M. “Looking for a universal truth.” Employee Benefit News. 1 Apr. 2007. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Capell, Kerry. “The French Lesson in Health Care.” BusinessWeek. 9 July 2007. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib. Clemson U. 22 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 25 Apr. 2006. The United States Department of Health and Human Services. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/.
Colliver, Victoria. “’Sicko’ a pain in the neck for health care industry.” San Francisco Chronicle. 30 June 2007. SFGate. 14 Apr. 2008. < f="/c/a/2007/06/30/BUGOPQOIJT1.DTL">.
“Data and Statistics and Programmes and Projects: Facts Sheet.” World Health Organization. 2008. World Health Organization. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.who.int/en/.
Gay, John, and et al. “Seek Realistic Health Care Reform.” USA Today. 25 Oct. 2006. News p12A. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Hauss, Tyler Anne. Personal Interview. 17 Apr. 2008.
Hogberg, David. “’Health Care,’ more or less.” The Washington Times. 10 June 2007. Comm. B04. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Litow, Mark E. "Confronting the Fear Factor: The Coverage/Access Disparity in Universal Health Care." Benefits Quarterly 23.3 (Third Quarter 2007): 17-21. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Cooper Lib. Clemson U. 15 Apr. 2008 http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26069362&site=ehost-live.
Prime, Steve, and Rachel Sobelson. “Canada’s Health-care Model.” The Washington Times. 8 Apr. 2007. Letters B02. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Scheinberg, Labe, and Diana M. Schneider. Voluntary Health Organizations: A Guide to Patient Services. New York, 1987.
Stewart, Charles T. Health, Wealthy, or Wise? Issues in American Health Care Policy. Armonk: New York, 1995.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Rough Draft
Melissa Magee
April 22, 2008
English 103 Section 16
A Need for Health Care Reform in the United States
The United States health care policy needs to be altered so that it can accommodate all citizens of this country, including both those that can and those that cannot financially afford health care or health insurance. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care plan or guarantee health care as a right of citizenship. Although many suggest a universal health care program, such as the one implicated in the 30 other industrialized nations including Canada’s or Britain’s, a closer look should be taken at this idea of universal health care before a plan is put into action (Battista).
In trying to improve the United States health care problem, we must first define the problems. First off, over 90 percent of citizens of the United States believe that the health care system should endeavor a fundamental change (Brooks). Also, over 17 percent of our country does not have health care insurance. This includes 48.5 million people and 21 percent of these people are under the age of 18. The United States also ranks 23rd in infant mortality, 20th in life expectancy for women, and 21st in life expectancy for men out of other countries! (Battista). According to the World Health Organization, the United States health care system was ranked 37th in 2000. The Institute of Medicine has even noted that “The United States’ health care system fails to deliver consistent, high-quality health care to its citizens, and without a major overhaul the problem will continue.” (“Data and Statistics.”) Now that the problem has been defined, what is the solution to fix it? Most people will generally jump to the conclusion that universal health care will solve all of these problems. Yet, is this really a realistic solution?
Universal health care can be defined as the government supplying all citizens with a health care plan. Health care is the services that are utilized by people for the prevention, treatment, and control of diseases and illness’, while health insurance is a way of paying for this health care (Hogberg). Universal health care does not mean that all citizens will have access to health care though.
As see in Canada’s and Britain’s universal health care programs, there are many faults. The Canadian Supreme Court has even admitted that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” According to a journal in Clinical Oncology “more than 20 percent of potentially curable lung cancer patients became terminally ill while on the waiting list.” Also, three patients in need of heart surgery in Canada died as they patiently suffered on a waiting list (Hogberg). The waiting time for serious operations in these nations is outrageous and it is obvious that it is not a realistic solution to the healthcare problem. The medical advancement and technology is also not as great in these countries compared to what has been achieved in America. The knowledge and advancement of health care in the United States is one of the best because of innovating research, cutting-edge surgical procedures, and avant-garde approaches to treatment of diseases and illnesses (Gay).
Another problem with universal health care is that is gives the idea that it is acceptable to live off of the government. There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have also given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. This is America: the land of opportunity! If people decide not to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer, than why should reap the benefits, such as full access to health care, also?
If a universal health care plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens and gave full access to all health care, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation. There would also be a tax cut in things such as education and defense. In America, everybody has an opportunity to have an education and get a job that offers insurance; some people just choose not to take advantage of this. By 2016, health care is going to account for one out of every five dollars spent by the United States government (Butler). That implies that people who have decent jobs will be paying for the insurance of people that do not have enough money to provide health care for themselves or for their families.
Although there are many faults, there is also a positive side to universal health care. A majority, with 56 percent of the American public, believes that universal coverage would be more beneficial to this country than the current system (Butler). A universal health care system would also be a more cost efficient way to go about health care in the United States. At this moment, America spends over 40 percent more on health care than any of the other industrialized countries that have a universal health care system (Battista). Also, the people living in Canada, which has a universal health care system, “have better care, better health, and less expensive care,” according to Steve Prime (Prime).
It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology that people are living off of the government; some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain health care. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. Statistics show that an outstanding 21 percent of the uninsured are below the age of eighteen! (Battista). This is a big reason of why there should be a form of Universal Healthcare that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, it does not mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no health care.
I feel that there needs to be a compromise in the responsibility for the health of the people of the United States that is shared between the citizens and the government. For example, health care could be divided into a private and public sector to accommodate the needs of the different financial levels in this country. To promote the ‘general welfare’ of the citizens of this country, the government should provide a health care program that helps out with preventative measures of disease and illness. This ‘universal’ health care program would only provide routine checkups and doctor appointments to citizens. It might also provide health education classes to citizens so that living a healthy life style can be learned. This public sector of health care would be provided to all citizens, no matter what their income level was, and would be accessed through public facilities, such as doctor offices and hospitals.
A private sector of health care should also stay instilled, which includes private insurance that is accessed through private hospitals and doctor offices. This private health care could be obtained through private insurance the same way that these companies work presently. An individual could purchase as much coverage as they deemed necessary, which would pay for all health expenses besides routine health care that prevents serious health problems. These extra health expenses would include situations such as surgery, braces, and specialty doctors, such as a chiropractor or gynecologist.
If covering the expenses of one’s serious medical problems was not planned for through private health insurance, there are always other resources that these people can turn to for financial assistance. For example, the United States has government run programs such as Medicaid and Medicare that are specifically utilized for health care. Medicaid and Medicare are programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and they “can make it possible for you to get the care that you need so that you can get healthy – and stay healthy.” These programs are restricted to people of certain income levels and certain eligibility requirements, which are set by each individual state (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Another solution that is very accessible in the United States is charities. According to Voluntary Health Organizations: A Guide to Patient Services, there are hundreds of voluntary health organizations that are able to assist Americans with many various diseases and illnesses, both through support emotionally and financially (Scheinberg). My grandmother recently passed away from lung cancer, and all of her medical expenses were covered through a local church charity group. It was the first charity group that my family had approached about the financial situation and they embraced the idea with an open heart. There are also many nonprofit organizations, such as St. Judes Hospital, who provide health care for situations where families cannot afford it.
The theory behind the private and public sectors of health care and health insurance would be that the government would teach the citizens how to live a healthy life and provide the basic needs and preventative measures of health care. These basic needs of health care, which include routine doctor appointments, are the most effective way to prevent serious health problems for people down the road.
If the United States government was to get the health of its citizens off to the right start, then they would be promoting the ‘general welfare’ of the population. If situations were to arise in the health of a citizen, especially if it was caused by self-afflicting behaviors, then it would then be the responsibility of the individual to cover their own health expenses. It is the government’s responsibility to help prevent illness and disease through promotion of health care, but it is not under any circumstance the government’s responsibility to pay for the health mistakes of the citizens of the United States. John Gay, an editorialist for USA Today, writes: “If there is a universal “right” to some kind of care, it needs to be limited in scope and cost and balanced with responsibility to prevent and pay. That is, people must be held responsible to avoid self-destructive behavior and pay their own way if they don’t comply (Gay).” The health of an individual is mostly in control by that individual. Reduced rates in heart problems has been mostly contributed to changes in behavior, such as healthier diets, increased regular exercise and activity, and reduced cholesterol and blood pressure levels (Stewart).
Another big problem with health care in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve health care, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. An infant was turned down by its insurance for cerebral palsy rehabilitation because the skill of walking was not a previous learned skill (Source 4). Incidents such as this one are reasons why the government should step into the world of health insurance and make laws regulating their prices and their claims that they reject. This would allow for everyone that makes a reasonable income to be able to afford insurance and benefit from the health care that it is supposed to be provided. If the government was to oversee these problems with insurance companies then it would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.
Overall, I think a full access Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over health care that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of universal health care, such as one that only covers basic health care needs should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens completely free health care will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.
Works Cited
Battista, John R. “The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States.” Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. 4 June 1999. 14 Apr. 2008. <http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm>.
Brooks, Janet. "America poised on the precipice of health reform." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 177.10 (06 Nov. 2007): 1170-1171. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Cooper Lib. Clemson U. 15 Apr. 2008 http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27236815&site=ehost-live.
Butler, Kelley M. “Looking for a universal truth.” Employee Benefit News. 1 Apr. 2007. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 25 Apr. 2006. The United States Department of Health and Human Services. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/.
Colliver, Victoria. “’Sicko’ a pain in the neck for health care industry.” San Francisco Chronicle. 30 June 2007. SFGate. 14 Apr. 2008. < f="/c/a/2007/06/30/BUGOPQOIJT1.DTL">.
“Data and Statistics.” World Health Organization. 2008. World Health Organization. 14 Apr. 2008. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2001/issue4/79(4)news.pdf.
Gay, John, and et al. “Seek Realistic Health Care Reform.” USA Today. 25 Oct. 2006. News p12A. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Hogberg, David. “’Health Care,’ more or less.” The Washington Times. 10 June 2007. Comm. B04. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Litow, Mark E. "Confronting the Fear Factor: The Coverage/Access Disparity in Universal Health Care." Benefits Quarterly 23.3 (Third Quarter 2007): 17-21. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Cooper Lib. Clemson U. 15 Apr. 2008 http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26069362&site=ehost-live.
Prime, Steve, and Rachel Sobelson. “Canada’s Health-care Model.” The Washington Times. 8 Apr. 2007. Letters B02. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Scheinberg, Labe, and Diana M. Schneider. Voluntary Health Organizations: A Guide to Patient Services. New York, 1987.
Stewart, Charles T. Health, Wealthy, or Wise? Issues in American Health Care Policy. Armonk: New York, 1995.
April 22, 2008
English 103 Section 16
A Need for Health Care Reform in the United States
The United States health care policy needs to be altered so that it can accommodate all citizens of this country, including both those that can and those that cannot financially afford health care or health insurance. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care plan or guarantee health care as a right of citizenship. Although many suggest a universal health care program, such as the one implicated in the 30 other industrialized nations including Canada’s or Britain’s, a closer look should be taken at this idea of universal health care before a plan is put into action (Battista).
In trying to improve the United States health care problem, we must first define the problems. First off, over 90 percent of citizens of the United States believe that the health care system should endeavor a fundamental change (Brooks). Also, over 17 percent of our country does not have health care insurance. This includes 48.5 million people and 21 percent of these people are under the age of 18. The United States also ranks 23rd in infant mortality, 20th in life expectancy for women, and 21st in life expectancy for men out of other countries! (Battista). According to the World Health Organization, the United States health care system was ranked 37th in 2000. The Institute of Medicine has even noted that “The United States’ health care system fails to deliver consistent, high-quality health care to its citizens, and without a major overhaul the problem will continue.” (“Data and Statistics.”) Now that the problem has been defined, what is the solution to fix it? Most people will generally jump to the conclusion that universal health care will solve all of these problems. Yet, is this really a realistic solution?
Universal health care can be defined as the government supplying all citizens with a health care plan. Health care is the services that are utilized by people for the prevention, treatment, and control of diseases and illness’, while health insurance is a way of paying for this health care (Hogberg). Universal health care does not mean that all citizens will have access to health care though.
As see in Canada’s and Britain’s universal health care programs, there are many faults. The Canadian Supreme Court has even admitted that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” According to a journal in Clinical Oncology “more than 20 percent of potentially curable lung cancer patients became terminally ill while on the waiting list.” Also, three patients in need of heart surgery in Canada died as they patiently suffered on a waiting list (Hogberg). The waiting time for serious operations in these nations is outrageous and it is obvious that it is not a realistic solution to the healthcare problem. The medical advancement and technology is also not as great in these countries compared to what has been achieved in America. The knowledge and advancement of health care in the United States is one of the best because of innovating research, cutting-edge surgical procedures, and avant-garde approaches to treatment of diseases and illnesses (Gay).
Another problem with universal health care is that is gives the idea that it is acceptable to live off of the government. There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have also given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. This is America: the land of opportunity! If people decide not to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer, than why should reap the benefits, such as full access to health care, also?
If a universal health care plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens and gave full access to all health care, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation. There would also be a tax cut in things such as education and defense. In America, everybody has an opportunity to have an education and get a job that offers insurance; some people just choose not to take advantage of this. By 2016, health care is going to account for one out of every five dollars spent by the United States government (Butler). That implies that people who have decent jobs will be paying for the insurance of people that do not have enough money to provide health care for themselves or for their families.
Although there are many faults, there is also a positive side to universal health care. A majority, with 56 percent of the American public, believes that universal coverage would be more beneficial to this country than the current system (Butler). A universal health care system would also be a more cost efficient way to go about health care in the United States. At this moment, America spends over 40 percent more on health care than any of the other industrialized countries that have a universal health care system (Battista). Also, the people living in Canada, which has a universal health care system, “have better care, better health, and less expensive care,” according to Steve Prime (Prime).
It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology that people are living off of the government; some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain health care. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. Statistics show that an outstanding 21 percent of the uninsured are below the age of eighteen! (Battista). This is a big reason of why there should be a form of Universal Healthcare that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, it does not mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no health care.
I feel that there needs to be a compromise in the responsibility for the health of the people of the United States that is shared between the citizens and the government. For example, health care could be divided into a private and public sector to accommodate the needs of the different financial levels in this country. To promote the ‘general welfare’ of the citizens of this country, the government should provide a health care program that helps out with preventative measures of disease and illness. This ‘universal’ health care program would only provide routine checkups and doctor appointments to citizens. It might also provide health education classes to citizens so that living a healthy life style can be learned. This public sector of health care would be provided to all citizens, no matter what their income level was, and would be accessed through public facilities, such as doctor offices and hospitals.
A private sector of health care should also stay instilled, which includes private insurance that is accessed through private hospitals and doctor offices. This private health care could be obtained through private insurance the same way that these companies work presently. An individual could purchase as much coverage as they deemed necessary, which would pay for all health expenses besides routine health care that prevents serious health problems. These extra health expenses would include situations such as surgery, braces, and specialty doctors, such as a chiropractor or gynecologist.
If covering the expenses of one’s serious medical problems was not planned for through private health insurance, there are always other resources that these people can turn to for financial assistance. For example, the United States has government run programs such as Medicaid and Medicare that are specifically utilized for health care. Medicaid and Medicare are programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and they “can make it possible for you to get the care that you need so that you can get healthy – and stay healthy.” These programs are restricted to people of certain income levels and certain eligibility requirements, which are set by each individual state (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Another solution that is very accessible in the United States is charities. According to Voluntary Health Organizations: A Guide to Patient Services, there are hundreds of voluntary health organizations that are able to assist Americans with many various diseases and illnesses, both through support emotionally and financially (Scheinberg). My grandmother recently passed away from lung cancer, and all of her medical expenses were covered through a local church charity group. It was the first charity group that my family had approached about the financial situation and they embraced the idea with an open heart. There are also many nonprofit organizations, such as St. Judes Hospital, who provide health care for situations where families cannot afford it.
The theory behind the private and public sectors of health care and health insurance would be that the government would teach the citizens how to live a healthy life and provide the basic needs and preventative measures of health care. These basic needs of health care, which include routine doctor appointments, are the most effective way to prevent serious health problems for people down the road.
If the United States government was to get the health of its citizens off to the right start, then they would be promoting the ‘general welfare’ of the population. If situations were to arise in the health of a citizen, especially if it was caused by self-afflicting behaviors, then it would then be the responsibility of the individual to cover their own health expenses. It is the government’s responsibility to help prevent illness and disease through promotion of health care, but it is not under any circumstance the government’s responsibility to pay for the health mistakes of the citizens of the United States. John Gay, an editorialist for USA Today, writes: “If there is a universal “right” to some kind of care, it needs to be limited in scope and cost and balanced with responsibility to prevent and pay. That is, people must be held responsible to avoid self-destructive behavior and pay their own way if they don’t comply (Gay).” The health of an individual is mostly in control by that individual. Reduced rates in heart problems has been mostly contributed to changes in behavior, such as healthier diets, increased regular exercise and activity, and reduced cholesterol and blood pressure levels (Stewart).
Another big problem with health care in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve health care, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. An infant was turned down by its insurance for cerebral palsy rehabilitation because the skill of walking was not a previous learned skill (Source 4). Incidents such as this one are reasons why the government should step into the world of health insurance and make laws regulating their prices and their claims that they reject. This would allow for everyone that makes a reasonable income to be able to afford insurance and benefit from the health care that it is supposed to be provided. If the government was to oversee these problems with insurance companies then it would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.
Overall, I think a full access Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over health care that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of universal health care, such as one that only covers basic health care needs should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens completely free health care will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.
Works Cited
Battista, John R. “The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States.” Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. 4 June 1999. 14 Apr. 2008. <http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm>.
Brooks, Janet. "America poised on the precipice of health reform." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 177.10 (06 Nov. 2007): 1170-1171. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Cooper Lib. Clemson U. 15 Apr. 2008 http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27236815&site=ehost-live.
Butler, Kelley M. “Looking for a universal truth.” Employee Benefit News. 1 Apr. 2007. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 25 Apr. 2006. The United States Department of Health and Human Services. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/.
Colliver, Victoria. “’Sicko’ a pain in the neck for health care industry.” San Francisco Chronicle. 30 June 2007. SFGate. 14 Apr. 2008. < f="/c/a/2007/06/30/BUGOPQOIJT1.DTL">.
“Data and Statistics.” World Health Organization. 2008. World Health Organization. 14 Apr. 2008. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2001/issue4/79(4)news.pdf.
Gay, John, and et al. “Seek Realistic Health Care Reform.” USA Today. 25 Oct. 2006. News p12A. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Hogberg, David. “’Health Care,’ more or less.” The Washington Times. 10 June 2007. Comm. B04. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Litow, Mark E. "Confronting the Fear Factor: The Coverage/Access Disparity in Universal Health Care." Benefits Quarterly 23.3 (Third Quarter 2007): 17-21. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Cooper Lib. Clemson U. 15 Apr. 2008 http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26069362&site=ehost-live.
Prime, Steve, and Rachel Sobelson. “Canada’s Health-care Model.” The Washington Times. 8 Apr. 2007. Letters B02. LexisNexis Academic. Cooper Lib., Clemson U. 14 Apr. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/loadForm.do.
Scheinberg, Labe, and Diana M. Schneider. Voluntary Health Organizations: A Guide to Patient Services. New York, 1987.
Stewart, Charles T. Health, Wealthy, or Wise? Issues in American Health Care Policy. Armonk: New York, 1995.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Revised Mediation Brief
Thesis: The United States Healthcare policy needs to be altered so that it can accommodate the citizens of this country that cannot financially afford healthcare, if their situation deems necessary. It does not need to allow for Universal Healthcare because it is not realistic to give ‘free’ healthcare to a country, when in reality someone has to be paying for it. A improved program, such as Medicaid, would be an appropriate solution for the situation to allow the less financially stable to be able to insure themselves and their families.
Reason 1: There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. This is America: the land of opportunity! If people decide not to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer, than why should reap the benefits, such as health care, also? If a Universal Healthcare plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation. Universal health care, or socialized medicine, is not simply “free”, it is paid by the people’s tax money. That implies that people who have decent jobs will be paying for the insurance of people that do not have enough money to provide health care for themselves or for their families. There will also be a tax cut in things such as education and defense. In America everybody has an opportunity to have an education and to get a job that offers insurance, some people just choose not to take advantage of it. Also, if you look at Canada and Britains Universal Healthcare program, it is obvious that it is not a realitic solution to the healthcare problem. The Canadian Supreme Court has even admitted that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." In Britain, 20 percent of potentially curable lung cancer patients became terminally ill while on the waiting list (Source 1).
Reason 2: It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology stated above; and some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain healthcare. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. Statistics show that a whopping 21% of the uninsured are below the age of eighteen (Source 2). There should be a form of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program, that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, doesn’t mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no healthcare. By allowing assistance for people when they are truly struggling or in a time of need only, it would allow a good approach to helping the general welfare of the United States, yet would be fair to those whom work and can afford healthcare. Yet, the Medicaid program needs improvement, so that these people can receive adequate care. For example, Swanson, a practitioner from Mesquite said: “If I accepted even 10% Medicaid, I would have to close my office. Pediatricians make very low margins. I am barely in business. ... It breaks my heart I can't treat Medicaid patients because I took care of them when I was a resident" (Source 3).' It is not the responsibility of doctors to accept a health care program that does not provide them the means of financial stability, but it is the responsibility of our government to provide a health care that will benefit the general welfare of the public. There are also many nonprofit organizations, such as St. Judes Hospital, who provide health care for situations where families cannot afford it.
Reason 3: One of the biggest problems with healthcare in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve healthcare, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. An infant was turned down by its insurance for cerebral palsy rehabilitation because the skill of walking was not a previous learned skill (Source 4). Incidents such as this one are reasons why the government should step into the world of health insurance and make laws regulating their prices and their claims that they reject. This would allow for everyone that makes a reasonable income to be able to afford insurance and benefit from the health care that it is supposed to provide. This is a problem that the United States government should step into and make regulations about so that these companies cannot keep hurting the United States public. This would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.
Conclusion: Overall, I think a Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over healthcare that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program or some other program that assists in helping people pay for healthcare that are unable to do so, should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens free healthcare will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the United States.
Source:
1.http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.0925361173135385&bhcp=1
2. http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
3.http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3468447733&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3468447760&cisb=22_T3468447759&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8291&docNo=2
4.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/30/BUGOPQOIJT1.DTL
Reason 1: There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. This is America: the land of opportunity! If people decide not to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer, than why should reap the benefits, such as health care, also? If a Universal Healthcare plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation. Universal health care, or socialized medicine, is not simply “free”, it is paid by the people’s tax money. That implies that people who have decent jobs will be paying for the insurance of people that do not have enough money to provide health care for themselves or for their families. There will also be a tax cut in things such as education and defense. In America everybody has an opportunity to have an education and to get a job that offers insurance, some people just choose not to take advantage of it. Also, if you look at Canada and Britains Universal Healthcare program, it is obvious that it is not a realitic solution to the healthcare problem. The Canadian Supreme Court has even admitted that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." In Britain, 20 percent of potentially curable lung cancer patients became terminally ill while on the waiting list (Source 1).
Reason 2: It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology stated above; and some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain healthcare. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. Statistics show that a whopping 21% of the uninsured are below the age of eighteen (Source 2). There should be a form of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program, that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, doesn’t mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no healthcare. By allowing assistance for people when they are truly struggling or in a time of need only, it would allow a good approach to helping the general welfare of the United States, yet would be fair to those whom work and can afford healthcare. Yet, the Medicaid program needs improvement, so that these people can receive adequate care. For example, Swanson, a practitioner from Mesquite said: “If I accepted even 10% Medicaid, I would have to close my office. Pediatricians make very low margins. I am barely in business. ... It breaks my heart I can't treat Medicaid patients because I took care of them when I was a resident" (Source 3).' It is not the responsibility of doctors to accept a health care program that does not provide them the means of financial stability, but it is the responsibility of our government to provide a health care that will benefit the general welfare of the public. There are also many nonprofit organizations, such as St. Judes Hospital, who provide health care for situations where families cannot afford it.
Reason 3: One of the biggest problems with healthcare in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve healthcare, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. An infant was turned down by its insurance for cerebral palsy rehabilitation because the skill of walking was not a previous learned skill (Source 4). Incidents such as this one are reasons why the government should step into the world of health insurance and make laws regulating their prices and their claims that they reject. This would allow for everyone that makes a reasonable income to be able to afford insurance and benefit from the health care that it is supposed to provide. This is a problem that the United States government should step into and make regulations about so that these companies cannot keep hurting the United States public. This would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.
Conclusion: Overall, I think a Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over healthcare that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program or some other program that assists in helping people pay for healthcare that are unable to do so, should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens free healthcare will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the United States.
Source:
1.http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.0925361173135385&bhcp=1
2. http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
3.http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3468447733&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3468447760&cisb=22_T3468447759&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8291&docNo=2
4.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/30/BUGOPQOIJT1.DTL
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Mediation Paper Brief
Thesis: The United States Healthcare policy needs to be altered so that it can accommodate the citizens of this country that cannot financially afford healthcare, if their situation deems necessary. It does not need to allow for Universal Healthcare because it is not realistic to give ‘free’ healthcare to a country, when in reality someone has to be paying for it. An affordable universal healthcare policy would be appropriate solution for the situation to allow the less financially stable to be able to insure themselves and their families.
Reason 1: There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. If a Universal Healthcare plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation.
Reason 2: It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology stated above; and some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain healthcare. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. There should be a form of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program, that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, doesn’t mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no healthcare. By allowing assistance for people when they are truly struggling or in a time of need only, it would allow a good approach to helping the general welfare of the United States, yet would be fair to those whom work and can afford healthcare.
Reason 3: One of the biggest problems with healthcare in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve healthcare, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. This is a problem that the United States government should step into and make regulations about so that these companies cannot keep hurting the United States public. This would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.
Conclusion: Overall, I think a Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over healthcare that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program or some other program that assists in helping people pay for healthcare that are unable to do so, should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens free healthcare will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the United States.
Reason 1: There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. If a Universal Healthcare plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation.
Reason 2: It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology stated above; and some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain healthcare. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. There should be a form of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program, that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, doesn’t mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no healthcare. By allowing assistance for people when they are truly struggling or in a time of need only, it would allow a good approach to helping the general welfare of the United States, yet would be fair to those whom work and can afford healthcare.
Reason 3: One of the biggest problems with healthcare in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve healthcare, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. This is a problem that the United States government should step into and make regulations about so that these companies cannot keep hurting the United States public. This would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.
Conclusion: Overall, I think a Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over healthcare that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program or some other program that assists in helping people pay for healthcare that are unable to do so, should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens free healthcare will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
