The Universal Healthcare System in the America

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Globally, many industrialized countries have a universal healthcare system, which offers comprehensive healthcare services for all citizens. Japan and Canada are just a few examples of countries that have a universal healthcare system. However, the US is among the most industrialized countries of the world, but unlike its industrialized partners, the country does not have the universal healthcare system.

This comparison has created a lot of debate regarding if America should have the universal healthcare system, or not. The debate regarding the Obama healthcare system in America largely bordered along these argumentative lines.

This paper is an argumentative paper that explores the adoption of the universal healthcare system in America. This paper also makes comparisons of the American healthcare system with the Canadian healthcare system to have a better conceptualization of the ramifications for adopting the universal healthcare system in America.

The Toulmin model structures the argument of this paper by exploring the claim, supporting evidence, and the warrant (the link between the claim and supporting evidence) of the argument.

Adoption of a Universal Healthcare Plan

This paper claims that America should consider healthcare as a human right for not only Americans but the global community as well. Therefore, the government should have state-funded healthcare clinics for treating all conditions and procedures, for all citizens.

The American Healthcare System is a Profit-making Business

There are many concerns regarding the extent that American healthcare institutions have inculcated the culture of profit making in the provision of healthcare services and the admission of patients in healthcare institutions. These practices show the deep-rooted profit-making nature that characterizes the country’s healthcare system.

The widespread and deep business interests in the healthcare systems have also infiltrated the American legislature because many lawmakers are beneficiaries of these insurance firms (Moore 1). Indeed, most insurance companies fund political campaigns and personal political activities, thereby influencing the objectivity of politicians when they explore the problems facing the healthcare system.

In other words, some politicians try to protect insurance companies whenever they debate issues of healthcare reforms. For example, Moore (1) says Hillary Clinton was among the greatest beneficiary of healthcare contributions while working as a senator in the government. Moore (1) also says that about 16 congressional aides work for insurance companies.

Some of them left public service to work in high-paying insurance companies. Billy Tauzin, for example, left public service to work for a healthcare insurance firm for about $2 million in monthly salaries (Moore 1). The influence of insurance companies in the American government also arose in the passage of the Medicaid Plan D (for prescription drugs) (Moore 1).

In this plan, the government directed about $800 billion of its expenditure in the Medicaid program to insurance companies (Moore 1). Through this understanding, the insurance companies run a very lucrative business by controlling the country’s healthcare system. Therefore, it is unsurprising that some of these companies and their proponents may be an impediment to the adoption of the universal healthcare system.

High Prices of Pharmaceutical Drugs

Another problem that plagues the American healthcare sector is the high prices of pharmaceutical drugs. The high prices of prescription drugs make it extremely difficult for ordinary Americans to sustain the treatment of high-cost medications (especially for terminal illnesses). This issue explains the reason some Americans (even with insurance coverage) experience many financial difficulties in meeting their medical costs.

While insurance companies have penetrated America’s government, pharmaceutical companies also hold an equally high advantage on politicians, thereby making it easy for them to advance their agendas through the government. Indeed, similar to the healthcare companies, these pharmaceutical companies also fund some politicians and their activities (Moore 1). They are therefore able to compromise some politicians to protect their interests in the market.

Healthcare as a Basic Human Right

The adoption of the universal healthcare system should be a basic human right. I make this claim because there is a direct relationship between universal healthcare and life expectancy rates. Moore (1) says that UK citizens who enjoy the universal healthcare system are likely to live longer than Americans do.

In fact, Moore (1) goes ahead to say that even a baby born in El Salvador may live longer than a child born in America does. The same situation manifests in Cuba and Canada because Canadians live three years more than Americans do (Moore 1). From this understanding, it would be correct to say that denying Americans the right to the universal healthcare plan would be equal to denying them a basic human right – long life.

Discrimination

The traditional model of the American healthcare system has been reliant on insurance companies for the payment of healthcare services. However, not all Americans may afford a health insurance plan. Consequently, the system excludes millions of Americans from the healthcare system. Armentano (2) claims that about 48 million Americans do not have access to health insurance.

The American healthcare system has therefore ignored this group of people in favor of those who have enough money to pay for health insurance. The discriminatory nature of the American healthcare system is arguable, the most persuasive argument for the adoption of the universal healthcare system. America’s discriminatory system does not only discriminate on people because of their financial background but also on their immigrant status and race.

Indeed, compared to the Canadian healthcare system, Lasser and Steffie (6) say, “Health disparities based on race, income, and immigrant status are present in both countries, but appear to be more pronounced in the United States” (Lasser and Steffie 6). However, some people question the discriminatory nature of the American healthcare system, especially based on the premise that it excludes about 47 million Americans from health insurance (Armentano 1).

To support the dissenting opinion, Armentano (1) says the government categorizes about 20% of the 47 million people in America who do not have healthcare insurance as “aliens” because they do not hold the necessary documents for categorizing them as American citizens. From this understanding, only about 37 million American citizens do not have a health insurance plan.

Furthermore, the former secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, recently admitted that about 25% of the 37 million Americans who do not have a health insurance plan choose not to have the coverage, even though they can afford it (Armentano 2). Therefore, about 17 million people choose not to have a health insurance plan (for whatever reason). From this understanding, the number of Americans who do not have a health insurance plan further reduces from about 47 million people to only about 20 million people.

However, even with such a reduction, some analysts still believe this figure is still exaggerated (Armentano 4). They say this figure still includes a huge population of Americans who switch jobs and lose their employment insurance (Armentano 4). Immediately, the census bureau captures these people as “uninsured,” thereby adding to the number of uninsured people in America. However, the same people secure a new job within a few months and later get new health insurance.

Armentano (5) says some Americans also do not subscribe to insurance companies because they enjoy almost free access to healthcare services through Medicaid and Medicare programs. Gallup and Newport (13) further say, “roughly six in ten Americans (61%) have private health insurance and 28% of adults nationwide are covered by Medicare or Medicaid” (Gallup and Newport 13).

From the above understanding, the number of uninsured people may fall to about 10,000,000. The Kaiser Foundation projects lower estimates of only about 8,000,000 people who do not have a health insurance plan in America (Armentano 8). Therefore, in a country that has slightly more than 300,000,000 people, some people would say it is unfair to criticize the entire healthcare model when only about 8,000,000 people do not have health insurance.

Armentano (9) says this group of people suggests that the government should introduce only minimal policy interventions to ensure the 8,000,000 people have some form of insurance. In their opinion, it is wrong to overhaul the entire healthcare system, while most Americans have an insurance cover (Armentano 9).

Nonetheless, since many employers offer health insurance plans in America, the economic uncertainty in the country may expose even employed American citizens that have healthcare insurance to the risk of having no insurance at all. Indeed, for many people who have a health insurance policy from their employers, the loss of their jobs may also mean the loss of health insurance.

In my view, there should be a more stable healthcare plan that is immune to economic and financial uncertainties.

Heavy Financial Burden

Albeit some politicians perceive the provision of private health insurance as America’s solution to healthcare problems, the financial burden of private health insurance has proved to be untenable in the end. The high cost of private health has created many financial problems for many American families. For example, Rayski (1) narrates the story of Donna Smith who hails from a Middle-class family with health insurance.

She never thought that her family’s healthcare bills would force them to sell their house and live in a cluttered room, away from the city (despite having health insurance) (Rayski 1). Smith and her husband both suffered from long-term health complications that raised their healthcare bills to unsustainable levels, thereby forcing them to sell their house (Rayski 1).

Their story mirrors the experiences of millions of other Americans who have experienced bankruptcy from high medical costs (despite having health insurance). Moore (1) has captured such stories in his latest documentary – SICKO.

The above story highlights the flaws of the American healthcare system by providing a very interesting dynamic of the healthcare system. Indeed, instead of focusing on the 47 million Americans who do not have a health insurance plan, it highlights the plight of millions of Americans who have a health insurance plan.

The film, as explained by Moore (1) highlights many issues of the American healthcare system, which show that the country’s healthcare system may not be the best in the world as claimed by some politicians.

A Comparison with Canada

As mentioned in previous sections of this paper, Canada has a universal healthcare system. This healthcare plan provides a large scope of healthcare benefits that include affordable healthcare services, unlimited access to healthcare services, increased efficiency of healthcare services, and reduced medical errors.

The Canadian federal government allows its ten provinces and three territories to manage their healthcare systems. Consequently, different Canadian provinces and jurisdictions have a special healthcare system that suits their local needs.

Since the wealthy and the poor can access healthcare services in Canada, the Canadian healthcare model is non-discriminatory. Certainly, while the American healthcare program favors those people that may afford insurance, the Canadian healthcare plan covers even those people who cannot afford insurance (universality of healthcare).

Furthermore, unlike the American healthcare system, which is a profit-making system, the Canadian healthcare plan is not profit oriented because the government is the main healthcare provider (the government has less motivation to make a profit). From this model, the government is the main player in Canada’s healthcare funding plan.

Some people have however expressed their reservations regarding the Canadian healthcare system. For example, Palmisano (1467) says, “Inherent problems include detrimentally long waits for care, rationing, a slowness to adopt new technology and maintain facilities, and a gigantic bureaucracy that interferes with clinical decision-making” Palmisano (1467).

Despite these reservations, I believe that through the governmentally funded healthcare model, there is minimal room by private healthcare partners to interfere with the country’s healthcare system (which is possibly America’s healthcare problem).

Indeed, unlike the American healthcare plan, there is little room for interested private companies to compromise the healthcare system the way politicians and insurance companies do in America. Through the above misgivings of the American healthcare system, I believe that the Canadian healthcare model is better than the American model. Therefore, the American model may require comprehensive reforms.

Solutions

The main solution for correcting the weaknesses of the American healthcare system rests in solving the “politicization” of the country’s healthcare plan. This paper shows that there are high “stakes” in the country’s healthcare systems, which act as a hindrance to the adoption of comprehensive healthcare reforms.

This hindrance denies Americans the opportunity to make the country’s healthcare plan more affordable and accessible to all citizens. In my view, the government should take control of the entire healthcare plan (by substituting the role of insurance firms) and pay for healthcare services for its citizens, instead of leaving its people at the mercy of insurance companies.

The personal insurance covers should be an alternative healthcare plan for those people who wish to have them. Another alternative rests in improving the efficiency of the existing healthcare system. Improving coordination between healthcare systems is one such way of doing so. So far, the government is already investing in such a solution. Indeed, Dickersin (517) says,

“In addition to investments federal funding agencies are already making in their own programs, they can and ought to invest in a coordinated way in infrastructure for Cochrane systematic reviews and to encourage cooperative work between knowledge producers to increase efficiencies” (Dickerson 517).

Combing through the records of hospitals and insurance companies will also help in improving the efficiency of health departments (Anderson 1080). Comprehensively, all citizens should find refuge in the universal healthcare scheme that does not discriminate, based on the ability to pay premiums. Lastly, there should be a careful balance between providing quality care and affordable care to all citizens.

Conclusion

After weighing the findings of this paper, it is correct to say that the American healthcare system has many flaws that create the perception of inferiority when compared to other health systems in some developed countries. Therefore, the US may learn valuable lessons that other healthcare systems (like the Canadian healthcare system) provide.

Certainly, the Canadian healthcare system provides valuable lessons for the adoption of an efficient and practical solution for solving America’s discriminatory healthcare system. The main lesson that arises from this system is the availability of quality healthcare services, even for low-income citizens. Therefore, unlike America, it is difficult for healthcare costs to cause bankruptcy among Canadians.

Albeit the American healthcare system is not entirely dysfunctional, its greatest weakness is the failure of the government to pay for the medical costs. Instead, people pay for the medical costs from their pockets and private health insurance companies make huge profits from this system. The citizens, therefore, suffer from high medical costs.

Consequently, while the American healthcare plan may be flexible to include personal preferences (private healthcare schemes), it is still expensive for most citizens. Lastly, even as the above dynamics paint a bleak picture of the American healthcare system, there is hope in the fact that the American government intends to make comprehensive reforms to its healthcare plan.

Works Cited

Anderson, Christopher. “Measuring What Works in Healthcare.” Science 263.25 (1994): 1080- 1082. Print.

Armentano, Dom 2013, Are There Really 47 Million Americans Who Can’t Afford Health Insurance? Web.

Dickersin, Kay. “To Reform U.S. Health Care, Start with Systematic Reviews.” Science 329.5991 (2010): 516-517. Print.

Gallup, Alec, and F. Newport. The Gallup Poll, London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print.

Lasser, Karen and Woolhandler Steffie. “Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National Population-Based Survey.” American Journal of Public Health, 96.7 (2006): 1-7. Print.

Moore, Michael 2012, SICKO. Web.

Palmisano,Donald. “Debating how to fix health insurance.” Science 303.5663 (2004): 1467-1469. Print.

Rayski, Adrienne 2012, The Healthcare Nightmare. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!