The Universal Health care became popular through the effort of President Bill Clinton (Sage, 2008). This is a government program which aims to give every citizen of the country to have an access to several medical services. The program also considers such medical services and health care as a right for each and every American. Issuance of the Universal Health care had been a subject for discussion of most medical practitioners and doctors all over the country. Insights regarding the said health care are being presented and counterarguments are also being raised.
Several advantages as well as disadvantages of this program had been laid and put into debate. Up to now, the question on the efficiency and inefficiency of the program still remains as a question. Proponents and supporters of the Universal Health care stress that it is the ‘right’ of every individual (whether low income or high income individuals) to have an access and get hold of the benefits of medical services. No one should be deprived of this right. However, the United States’ current situation in terms of providing access to all individuals was said to be low (Annals of Internal Medicine, 2008, p. 62).
As a matter of fact, the country ranks last in terms of providing access and only ‘insured people in the state have the rapid access to specialized care. ’ In the year 2005, it was reported that around ‘15. 9% Americans have no health care coverage (Forman, 2007, p. 22). ’ Most of the health care coverage being provided to Americans is employment based thus this fact brings forth the question, “How about those who do not have jobs, will they be able to access medical services in hospitals?
’ This question was more likely to be the starting point of discussion of the supporters of the Universal Health care program. In addition, this system of healthcare (employment based healthcare) would eventually tie-up an employee to stay in the workforce. In the report written by Litow (2007), he stated that healthcare cost is rising to roughly 8% to 9% per year while incomes are rising to about 5% to 6% only (p. 17). Knowing this fact, it is naturally beneficial for individuals to opt in embracing the Universal Health Care program.
Through the aid of the said program, ‘health care and administrative costs would be reduced (Sage, 2008). ’ Furthermore, the amount that an average American family spends for healthcare would in no doubt be lowered. It is said that an average family spends around 20% of its income on healthcare (Brooks, 2007, p. 1170). On the other hand, opponents of the Universal Healthcare program argued that implementing the said program would ‘violate the rights of businessman, doctors and patients to act on their own judgment (Zinser and Hsieh, 2008).
Provision of the said program to all individuals of the state would clearly violate the right of the doctors in free trade. Doctors and other medical practitioners had spent years to obtain their occupation. It would typically be unfair if these persons would rely only with the payments that would be given by the government and are not allowed to charge payments which are likely suited or adequate from the service that they provided.
Competitiveness of doctors is being challenged in this scenario (The problem with socialized health care, 1999). Physicians’ incentives are reduced thus encouraging them to search for better opportunities far from government- monopolized areas. Furthermore, doctors (acquiring a minimal compensation for their work) would be more likely to be less enthusiastic in their field. Less enthusiasm of doctors in performing their task may lead to a poor quality of health care being rendered.