National Health Care System
...dicaid for lower income families, and the Children‘s Health Insurance Program. The problem with these health care systems is that many people fall short of qualifying. Is the U.S. in dire need of a national health care system or should we always rely on the familiar and dependable; as in private health care systems? In the U.S. billions of dollars are spent each year on health care; “approximately 232 million out of a total of 274 million people now have health insurance” (Blue Cross Blue Shield 2001); leaving 42 million people uninsured. Insurance can be expensive for people to attain on their own, this explains why the majority are covered mainly through private health care provided by their employers. Not all employers provide insurance, such as, small business who can‘t afford to provide coverage for their employees. People who have insurance frequently waste money on health care that exceeds their needs; while others do not have adequate health care for what they require. The quality of healthcare occasionally depends on whether the patient has the “right” insurance or any at all. The National Coalition on Health Care conducted a poll consisting of over a thousand American households concerning the health care system. “Eight out of Ten people felt that there is something seriously wrong with the health care system and that it is unaffordable. Five out of Ten people are satisfied with the quality of their insurance,” (emphasis mine). Private health systems aid in providing new technology, different plans, educational programs for members, and convenient locations around the nation. “Health plans are continually evolving and improving their operations and their relationship with consumers” (Young, interim president of HIAA 2001). Private health insurance’s pay at least one third of health care costs. There are concerns about forming a national health care system. People are weary of the government having total control, wasting funds and socialized medicine; private systems are viewed as being more “efficient“. There could be long lines and delays in receiving health services? Other nations have had such problems by not considering an increase in population or costs of medical care. Would a national health care system lower health care quality? Are the finances available for everyone in the U.S. to have coverage, it would cost billions of dollars to start the system, who would pay? Starting a national system could cause a decrease in wages that would result in hospitals being under staffed and a loss of jobs. Would doctor patient relationships change? According to the World Medical Association, “doctors should not be forced to participate in a healthcare system. Doctors should be able to practice where they want and be able to treat patients of their choice.” The government’s Medicare program operates 2 percent less than private systems. They do not have corporate administrative expenses. The current health care system contains uninsured people or corporate insurances which keep cutting back to be more “efficient“. The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have conducted studies that prove that the U.S. can provide health care for everyone without additional funds that are already being spent today. The U.S. has more capabilities in technology than the other nations and more available funds. The other nations need only increase their budget to adapt to the needs of healthcare. Socialized medicine is government owned facilities and government employees supervising all health care. Socialized medicine is not part of a national health care system, there would still be private and public sectors of the health care system. “Contrary to the widely publicized view that government should not be involved in health care, the survey indicates a bipartisan majority of Americans feel the federal government should play an active role in working with the private sector to improve the quality of health care” (The National Coalition on Health Care 2001). “Our Health care cannot progress without an articulated purpose, a common vision expressed as policy that eliminates ambiguity of purpose, ambivalence towards performance standards, conflicts of principles, and contradictions of goals” (Sultz 1991). ...