Health & Fitness >
Health Care
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedHealth care is increasingly expensive in the United States, is it time to adopt European style "universal health care"?
Results so far:
| Yes | 72% | 214 votes | Total: 296 votes | |
| No | 28% | 82 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesHealthcare is increasingly expensive in the United States, is it time to adopt European style universal health care?
There is no question that that the cost of healthcare has escalated to the point where it is no longer affordable for the majority of working people. Is the United States ready for universal health care?
The first issue to this problem is the cost of health care. Why is the cost of medical care so expensive? We need to take a closer look at where the costs are increasing and what has caused these increases.
The United States is based on the right to free enterprise. Free enterprise comes with a price. When you have free enterprise, companies have the freedom to place a fee on their services that will produce a profit for them.
So what has caused the insurance companies to continually raise their prices? What has changed over the years that have caused their profits to fall? When this issue is solved then it can be determined whether the United States should consider universal health care.
Over the years, many doctors and hospitals have been overcharging the insurance companies. It is a proven fact that many physicians and hospitals purposely add extra fees to their bills. Have you ever looked at the charge for an aspirin on your hospital bill? It would be cheaper to buy a bottle of aspirins and take it with you to the hospital.
Have you ever been charged a consultation fee by a doctor when there was no consultation? He simply peeked into your room and said good morning?
Pharmaceutical companies charge outrageous fees for medicine. Granted, research takes money, but one must question why one pill can cost as much as a hundred dollars. There is no question that these prices are greatly inflated so these companies will show their annual profits.
These little things need to be corrected. This makes the profit of the insurance providers to fall. This will cause the insurance company to increase their premiums for the patients.
The cost of Medicare for the elderly and poor has also been abused by the physicians and hospitals. There have been many doctors and hospitals overcharging Medicare, thus causing the government to spend more than necessary. This in turn causes the government to raise the Medicare deductions for the working people. Most people on Medicare now need to purchase supplemental insurance to avoid having large medical bills.
Hospitals have a need for technical equipment. This cost of this equipment is steadily increasing as the companies have continually raised their cost so that their profits will increase. The cost of maintenance and labor for this equipment is constantly increasing. This causes hospitals to continually raise their cost thus causing insurance premiums to increase.
The cost of receptionist and people to keep medical records for hospitals and doctors are steadily rising. The overall cost of technicians and maintenance people have also increased. These costs must be passed onto the patients in order for either to make a profit.
The question seems to be whether free enterprise has a place in the healthcare of the general population. Does the right to have medical care lie in the hands of a few select free enterprises? Does this infringe on the rights of the general people to have good affordable medical care?
It is free enterprise and the rights of these enterprises that continually raise prices so that their annual profits will increase. Here, the questions arise Will universal health care impose on the rights of a person or entity to exercise free enterprise? Should the rights to healthcare of the general population be controlled by a few select insurance companies for a profitable gain?
People have given many good reasons why there should not be a universal healthcare plan. The main argument has been that they do not want to be controlled. They feel that their freedom will be infringed upon. Isn't their freedom already being infringed upon when their only choice for healthcare is being controlled by the few insurance companies that determine how much they are going to pay and where they can get medical treatment? Isn't this itself a type of socialism?
It seems that the question should be, Do we continue to let a few free enterprises control our healthcare issues or do we let the government control our healthcare issues?
Having insurance companies dictate our healthcare simply gives you the right to choose which company you will make rich with your insurance premiums. It gives them the right to choose how much care you will receive according to how much you are willing to pay. It controls the efficiency of the physician, limiting them to certain options.
Universal healthcare allows the government to dictate the healthcare of the general population. This gives the government the right to choose how much care you will receive. It will also control the efficiency of the physician, limiting them to certain options.
In either situation, our healthcare is still being dictated and controlled. This brings us to the question of which will be the most affordable and beneficial to the people?
At the rate our insurance premiums are increasing and the quality of healthcare decreasing, it may very well be necessary for the government to provide universal healthcare.
Learn more about this author, Marion Garcia.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
In an address to Congress on August 12, 1974, former president Gerald R. Ford stated, a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take from you everything you have. Implementing universal health care modeled after the French system, would be a measure of unconstitutionally increasing the size of the federal government intended by the founders of our nation. Like many propositions that would increase the size of our government, this plan for universal health care has some major problems, three of which are:
1. Costliness
2. Health care quality
3. The fact that better options exist
Universal health care, which the general public would see as "free health care" isn't necessarily free. If we were to implement a health care system that spends exactly as much as France per capita on healthcare, which is about $3400 a year according to CBS News, more than 1 trillion per year would be needed to put a plan in place for the current population of the United States, which is almost 306 million people. Based on a spending report from the official Budget of the United States Government, this is more than $300 billion more than the federal government currently spends on health care. There must be a source of money to fund a health care plan such as that. This would mean that expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes for citizens and/or spending cuts in other important service areas such as defense, education, and domestic protection, which are without doubt needed to run this nation, a characteristic that universal health care does not encompass.
Another problem with implementing health care modeled after the French system would be the quality of healthcare. In France, the average physician makes about $55,000 per year. There are many other occupations that pay more.
Therefore, the educated would be more inclined to choose a profession other than medicine. If universal health care were to be introduced in the United States, the level of reimbursement to physicians would be lower than it currently is by private health care companies. This would lead to a breakdown of the current very high-paying profession. Lower pay means a lower amount of intelligent people interested in the field. This would lead to poorer patient care (because the well-educated would be working in fields in which getting a degree is easier and the work is more rewarding).
It would also lead to increased wait times due to a shortage of qualified physicians, which would furthermore lead to unnecessary deaths. The French also encourage the use of dangerous prescription drugs. The average general practitioner prescribes 260,000 Euros worth of drugs each year. However, other patients do not receive the medicine they need. One study found that almost 90 percent of asthma patients are not prescribed medicine that could improve their condition.
My third argument in negation of implementing a health care system modeled on that of France is that better options exist. For example, the healthcare system in Japan provides its citizens with the longest life expectancy on the planet while costing much less than the United States
system. The Australian system also merits study when considering healthcare reform. It has similar infant mortality rates and is less expensive than the healthcare system in France. Another better alternative is Denmark, where 90 percent of citizens are satisfied with their healthcare services. This system also does fairly well in expenditure, productivty, and waiting times.
For these reasons of cost and health care quality, and also the fact that better options do exist, I am in negation of this plan for the United States government to implement universal health care.
Learn more about this author, Jack Laszlo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Health Care
- Do states have a constitutional right to set health care policy?
- Should insurance companies play intermediary between patients and doctors?
- Is universal health care politically feasible in the U.S.?
- Does Medicare's crackdown on doctors' profits help or hurt patients?
- Is expanding government health programs an inefficient way to help the uninsured?
- Should your state government allow you to buy health insurance from out-of-state companies?
