Health care is one of the many basic yet significant needs that every citizen of America should acquire in order to maintain and improve their quality of life. Gaining access to health care awards people with the security of affording health care services in times of need. Moreover, access to health care services allows people to stay and keep healthy, thus, allowing them to finish their schooling, raising their chances to land jobs and perform well in their field, and contribute to the economy of the country. These are the basics in explicating the need for health a care system.
Due to these assumptions, it is fairly necessary for the American government to provide their citizens with free access to health care. This is for the purposes of addressing the basic needs of their people, as well as to enact their responsibility of abiding by the laws and regulations embodied within the constitution. Access to health care is a privilege as supported by the principles of human rights, specifically under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Center for Economic and Human Rights, 4)
Nevertheless, recent studies have revealed the poignant state of affairs of health care in America. Statistics show that almost forty-five million of the entire American population is not able to avail of health care services that the government is implementing in the country. (Porter) Moreover, this figure is growing continuously as more and more people annually lose their health insurance because of their inability to pay for the services. This inability is solely due to the meager salary and limited benefits that they receive. The cost of health care in the United States is just too expensive, as majority of the population express their concern with deficiencies of the American health care system. (Clemmit)
Due to this drawback to the health care system of the country, the government is exerting great efforts to reformation. Apparently, there are a lot of alternatives to reforming the health care system of the country. People look to compare the U.S. health care system with that of Canada. People look to the recommendations of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Not to mention, analysts and professionals have their own say on the issue. The succeeding discussions shall attempt to explicate several alternative proposal that were presented from all sides of the government and society in order to address the ongoing problem of health care insurance in the country.
I believe that the implementation of national health care is one of the most appropriate alternatives of easing the burden of the American people from subscribing for costly health care insurance. This is because national health care adopts a single payer system. A single payer system obligates the U.S. government to recompense for all the expenses that American citizens withdraw from health care services. This move would bring the health care system to a full swing as it changes the current system, which holds not only the government, but also private insurance providers, the people, and the employers accountable for health care expenses. (DeGrazia)
National health care is seen by some to be the best solution to address the growing problem of the limited and costly health care services in the country. The need to implement national health care in America is based on the success of the Canadian health care system. Canada has implemented a universal health care system wherein all citizens were granted access to an all-inclusive health care insurance. (DeGrazia) Health care facilities and medical professionals simply fill out a form wherein they indicate what services they have provided for their patients. These forms will be sent to one organization or agency, which disburses the cost of health care services. (Himmelstein & Woolhandler) This type of insurance only costs $1770 for every citizen. This amount, when compared to the U.S. government’s current expenses on health care for every individual, which is $2566, is lesser. (DeGrazia)
Taking a closer look at this significant difference between the U.S. and Canadian health care system, the adoption of America with a national health care system would save the country $286 billion every year. Research suggested that this amount of money might be used to provide health care insurance to all Americans who are not covered by the said services. Moreover, this substantial amount of money could be used to pay for all drug prescriptions that the low-income or average American cannot afford. Basically, the implementation of national health care would save the country billions of dollars that would be instrumental to address the issue of limited and costly health care insurance in the country. (Himmelstein & Woolhandler)
The success of the Canadian national health care may be traced to the structure of the system that they implement. Canada cuts back on unnecessary expenses in order to fulfill the promise of free health care for all. Private health insurance providers in the country were wiped out, in order to lessen administrative costs or expenses and allocate it to health care insurance for the people. Moreover, the country issues global budgeting, which regulates the expenses of health care services, such as payment for medical professionals and the facilities and overall expenses of health care facilities all over the country. (DeGrazia)
During the term of former president Bill Clinton, efforts ensued to implement a universal health care system that would solve the building-up of concerns regarding unaffordable health care insurance. However, the implementation of the health care plan was premature, which led to its downfall. Several days after the incident, Hilary Clinton took over the health care plan. Their objective during that time was to provide inexpensive health care insurance while at the same time allow private health insurance providers to still operate. Resistance from business organizations led to the second defeat of the health care plan. (Clemmett)
Although both the former president and his wife’s moves to implement universal health care failed, Hilary Clinton still remains supportive of the idea of a universal health care system. Staying true to the objectives of the health care plan, she was able to determine what went wrong during her husband’s implementation of the initial health care plan that apparently was based on budget cuts that made the situation of the health care industry worse than ever. According to the former first lady, cutting the budgets for health care services injured the medical profession and the industry. She admitted that the health care budget cut went too far. Hilary Clinton believes that in order to achieve a successful universal health care system, the government should also address the needs and demands of those who belong to the health care industry, acknowledging their important role in propelling health care services to progression. (Nagourney)
On the other side of the playing field, the implementation of universal health care is perceived by others as economically wounding. Analysts and experts that the government is incapable of providing for all the health care expenses of the people due to the high cost of health care coverage that shall be granted to individuals. Moreover, universal health care threatens to close down all private health insurance companies that have long been the ally of the government in providing health care services for the people. They claim that granting Universal Health Vouchers (UHV) to the people is a likely alternative than the universal health care system. The UHV is set to resolve the issue of costly health care services. UHV’s will cover for the health care expenses of all people who shall be reviewed and approved to be eligible for subscription of the said voucher. People will be able to use the UHV until their 65th year. (“Alternative Proposals in the Debate over Health Care Reform (sidebar).”)
The UHV is not an option, the national health care system is. We do not need to conduct research and other studies in order to prove that national health care works. If we look at the ratings of the U.S. health care system, and place it side by side with the Canadian health care system, people should be thinking about adopting the concept of national health care. The question is, if other countries can do it, why can’t the U.S.? Health care is a right, and right should be granted by the government that they look up to, operating under the laws and regulations of the constitution. Health care should be free for all. The UHV is subject to eligibility and other terms, therefore, it does not support the concept of free health care for all. As Hilary Clinton said, the people should be working together, instead of criticizing each other because of political and economic concerns. The country needs the government’s help, and the answer is national health care.
Works Cited
“Alternative Proposals in the Debate over Health Care Reform (sidebar).” Issues & Controversies
On File 23 Sept. 2005. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. MOORPARK COLLEGE, MOORPARK, CA. 9 Apr. 2008 <http://www.2facts.com>.
Center for Economic and Human Rights. “The Right to Health in the United States of America:
What Does it Mean?” Oct. 2004. Retrieved from Uplift International Organization. 21 Apr. 2008 <http://www.upliftinternational.org/The%20Right%20to%20Health%20in%20the%20US%20What%20Does%20it%20Mean.pdf>>.
Clemmit, Marcia. “Universal Coverage.” CQ Researcher 17 Dec. 2007: 265-288. Retrieved from
CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Moorpark college, Moorpark, Ca. 21 Apr. 2008 <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2007033000>.
DeGrazia, David. “The United States Should Adopt National Health Insurance.” Opposing
Viewpoints: Health Care. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Moorpark college, Moorpark, Ca. 2000
Himmelstein, David U. & Woolhandler, Steffie. “National Health Insurance Could Save $286
Billion on Health Care Paperwork.” At Issue: Does the United States Need a National Health Insurance Policy?. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Moorpark College Library, Moorpark, Ca. 21 Apr. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010368206&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=moor85003&version=1.0>.
Nagourney, Adam. “Mrs. Clinton Renews Fight For Universal Health Care. ” New York Times
[New York, N.Y.] 15 Oct. 1999, Late Edition (East Coast): 5. ProQuest National Newspapers Core. ProQuest. MOORPARK COLLEGE LIBRARY, MOORPARK, CA. 21 Apr. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/>
Porter, Eduardo. “Health Care for All, Just a (Big) Step Away. ” New York Times [New York,
N.Y.] 18 Dec. 2005, Late Edition (East Coast): 3.4. ProQuest National Newspapers Core. ProQuest. Moorpark college, Moorpark, CA. 21 Apr. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/>