Universal Health Care The issue of health care is a widely debated issue in the United States today. The United States spends more on health care than any other country….
Universal Healthcare in the US
Explain how access, quality, and cost is improved in your new system by answering the following questions 3. What economic impact will these changes bring? Scope and Size of the US Healthcare System The US healthcare delivery system Is massive.
Total employment In various settings Is almost 10 million, which Includes; Professionally active doctors of medicine(Meds) 744,000 Active nurses Dentist Pharmacists Healthcare Administrators 168,000 226,000 700,000 Therapists(physical, occupational, and speech) Hospitals Nursing Homes In-patient mental faceless 5,760 16,100 4,300 Federal health centers(undeserved rural and urban areas) 325,000 ,700 clinical cites Medical Schools dental Schools Pharmacy Schools Nursing Programs 150 91 1,500 Americans with private health insurance Medicare Beneficiaries Medicaid recipients Health Insurance Companies 41 42500,oho 1,300 Retrieved from: National Center for Health Statistics 2006; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; American Health Insurance Plans 2009; Kaiser Family Foundation Commission on Medical and the uninsured 2008; American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy 2009; American Association of Medical Colleges 2010; American Dental Education Escalation 2009; and the National Association of Community Health centers 2009. Exhibit: Show; Supply and Demand Curve as Demand change with increased access Access We propose to pay for our universal healthcare plan through the Implementation of a 5 percent value-added tax (VAT). Revenue from the tax could not be diverted to other uses such as the military or Social Security.
No other tax revenues would be used to that we now spend on health care. The money would simply be collected in a more equitable way and spent more rationally, avoiding waste and excessive administrative costs. Under a VAT system, consumption is taxed throughout the chain of production, not just at the point of consumer purchases. When a manufacturer purchases raw materials from a supplier, it pays a tax to the government; when the manufacturer turns around and sells the good to the retailer, the retailer again pays a tax with its purchase; and the consumer pays the VAT when he or she buys the final product from the retailer. The amount that each player pays is a fixed percentage of the transaction price.
Under this plan, the government insists that all insurers offer the same comprehensive benefits to everyone, including: office and home visits, hospitalizing, preventive screening tests, prescription drugs, some dental care, inpatient and outpatient mental health care, and physical and occupational therapy. (Individuals who want to purchase coverage for additional services like caretaker medicine, experimental drugs for serious conditions, complementary medicines or more mental health benefits could do so. ) Under the proposal, all Americans would receive a health certificate entitling the individual or family to enroll in the health care plan of their choice. In most cases, they would keep their current physician.
The certificate would not be a “cash card” to buy services; instead, it would be a voucher that gives the individual or family the eight to enroll in whatever insurance plan they choose. The vouchers are of equal value, and the health plans must all offer the same rich package of benefits. No one would be forced to buy insurance; everyone would simply receive a voucher that entitled them to an equal place in our health care system, at no charge. This program would replace employer-based insurance with insurance that offers generous benefits to everyone who is not now covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Today, the average state spends more than one-third of its budget on health insurance for state employees, Medicaid and SHIP. Any one already qualified for one of these three programs could switch to the universal coverage and within 10 to 15 years we could phase out those state and federally sponsored programs. This would free-up revenue to be used to rebuild some of the deteriorating infrastructure in America such as falling bridges and city water reclamation services. This would create Jobs for the economy. Transaction price. The VAT is as reliable a cash cow as you’re going to find: It can generate an enormous amount of money at a relatively low tax rate. 5% for this proposal) For example, a median-income family earning $50,000 a year might well spend the entire $50,000 on housing, food, utilities, clothing, transportation, etc. Under a 5 percent VAT, that family would pay $2500 a year to help fund universal coverage. But, in return, it would receive health insurance worth at least $12,500 (the going price for an employer-based family plan). This VAT tax proposal is four-fold: It faces up to the fact that reform won’t pay for itself, and It offers a funding mechanism that is fair and efficient and could deliver high-quality care nationwide. It regulates insurers, forcing them to concentrate on quality.
Finally, and perhaps cost importantly, this plan insulates our health care system from the lobbyists who, today, have far too much control over our health care system. Lengthy waiting times for treatment. Many Canadians, that can afford it, travel America to receive treatment due to the inefficiency in their own healthcare system. Canadians also averaged 17 weeks wait time for general practitioner referrals to treatments in 2008 (Small, 2009). This is so called health care is nothing more than a bunch of bureaucratic red tape meeting extensive waiting lists and increasing patient suffering. Universal health care has no exceptions to the rules nor of patients ell being in mind. Matter of fact no matter what your condition there is no disparities of care.
It is unfair to the healthy tax payers because it gives people, who smoke, drink, do drugs and eat unhealthy unfair benefits within the health care system. Universal health care will become a melting pot of sick and unhealthy people thus increasing the cost to keep the program alive. Taxpayers, doctors and insurance companies will suffer economic hardships. Nationalized health care cost will be absorbed by employers and employees. Unfortunately the incurred cost will not stop at the employers. The majority of employers will pass the cost increase onto the employees and the consumers. The cost of goods will steadily increase as a natural cost adjustment to the constant rising of health care expenses. These rising costs will have a deep impact on the economy.
Not only will health care raise but so will the cost of goods and services to try and keep up with the market. The resulting factor is individuals will pay higher income taxes, even as they pay increased health care costs, reducing their ability to support families or save for retirement (McBride, 2007). Americans will not only suffer airdrops with rising taxes but many will suffer the huge blow of unemployment. The universal health care program will decisively eliminate the need for health insurance companies to exist. The resulting factor is thousands of people nationwide will be unemployed. The end result will be increased taxes, goods and services and mass unemployment but we will still have health care for all.
This is not a good situation, this plan will bankrupt the American economy and slowly strangle everyone into a virtually unrecoverable downward spiral of indebtedness. Read more: http://www. Essays. Com/essays/sociology/impact-universal-health-care- as-on-doctors-and-insurance-companies-sociology-essay. PH#ixzz2VfunmylJT large body of research in recent years. There is ample empirical evidence that economic resources are associated with health outcomes. Studies to date have consistently shown that income and wealth improve such health indicators as mortality, incidence of diseases, and self-reported health status. While the association between health and economic resources is well documented and accepted, there is considerable disagreement over its source.
Economists have been more interested in the effect of health on economic well-being, arguing that poor lath (disability, chronic disease and the like) affects labor market outcomes and ultimately individual resources, while medical scientists have stressed instead that background differences in economic resources and socioeconomic variables determine differences in health outcomes. The framework that we use to analyze the connection between income and health takes into account the potential two-way causation between health and economic resources. We then use information on health care quality to investigate the importance of quality on such economic variables as health inequality, income inequality and saving behavior.