Health care debate and policy perspectives

Health Care Debate

Over the last several years, the issue of universal health care has been continuously brought to the forefront. This is because the overall costs have been consistently rising, which has been having ripple effects across the entire industry. A good example of this can be seen by doing a comparison of costs going back to 1970. In a study conducted by the Kaiser Foundation, they found that health costs have risen dramatically between 1970 and 2006. Where, costs were $356 per person in 1970 and accounted for 7.2% of the total GDP spending. In 2006, this number accounted for 15.3% of the total GDP spending; and it is expected to increase dramatically by 2018, where spending will account for $13,100 per person or 20.7% of GDP spending. ("Trends in Health Care Costs and Spending," 2006) as a result, proponents and critics of universal health care (a government run plan) have been hotly debating this issue, as a possible way to prevent spiraling costs. Yet, to fully understand the complexity of this issue requires that you carefully examine the arguments of both sides as well as the rebuttals. This will highlight, how and in what ways the health care system can be reformed.

Presentation of Arguments

To prevent the spiraling costs of health care, the proponents of universal care make a number of different arguments, the most notable would include: the number of uninsured is only continuing to increase. Because health care costs are increasing dramatically, all insurance companies are passing the price increases on to business and individuals, through increased premiums. This forces both businesses and consumers to make difficult the choice of having health insurance. As businesses are forced to deal with increasing costs of labor / compensation, which forces them to pass more of the increased costs for health insurance on to employees. For the individual, such a situation means that they might not be able to afford the higher insurance premiums. At which point, they could lose their insurance coverage all together. As a result, the total number of uninsured is now at 45 million people nationwide. (Messerili, 2010) to make matters worse, many insurance companies have been known to deny coverage to people who suffer from preexisting conditions. This is when you have an ailment or disease before you purchased your insurance. To control costs and fill any holes in coverage requires: that the government establish an alternative plan. That will cover those who can not afford health insurance, along with those who have preexisting conditions. According to the proponents, this will give consumers a choice as to what health care options make the most sense for them, as they can be able to purchase either private insurance or the universal coverage. Together, these two elements will decrease costs, as consumers have been postponing any kind of regular preventive medicine. This is when you are regularly screening, for various conditions, helping to reduce the chances that it will become fatal. The costs for this type of medicine are far lower, because when you are detecting various conditions early, it does not involve specialists and increased amounts of health care services. As a result, proponents will argue that this is the best way to be able to slow and prevent the spiraling cost of health care; from leaving an increasing amount of Americans without health insurance. (Messerili, 2010)

A second argument that many proponents of universal care make is: that it will provide more effective care. The current system of private insurance often involves the physician having to spend time filling out insurance forms and health claims. This causes the doctor to place less emphasis on care and more time on record keeping. Under a universal health plan, there would be a national database created, this would allow each physician to spend less money on record keeping. As this would have all relevant information on patients, at one central location. (Andersen, 2007) as a result, this will lower the amount of wasted time spent on filling out forms and it will increase the overall quality of care that is being received. (Messerili, 2010)

The critics make excellent points when it comes to possible problems of a universal health care system, the most notable would include: it will create a big government bureaucracy. The government has been known to begin programs with the best of intentions, yet the overall amount of regulations leads to inefficiencies. At which point, the overall costs of care will be passed on to the tax payer in the form of higher taxes. This leads to a decrease in the overall quality of care and it will not slow the price increases, as the government seeks to restrict access to these services. Then, when the program becomes broken (such as: what is happening to Social Security) removing or reforming the bureaucracy is nearly impossible. (Messerili, 2010)

A second argument that many critics make about universal health care is: it will stifle innovation. Whenever, the government is running any kind of program, they will place a large number of restrictions and regulations on the industry. When this takes place, you are causing some of the best and brightest minds to seek careers in other fields, as the restrictions from the government are too cumbersome. A good example of this would be: the fear that many critics claim will happen to physicians under such a plan. Where, the government will seek to restrict the overall amount of salaries that someone can make in this field. (Wexler, 2003) This could lead to a shortage of available doctors and nurses, who leave the field because of the mountains of regulations that they must follow and limited financial benefits. Once this take place, it is only a matter of time until the price of health care will increase and the overall quality will decrease, as the shortages in the industry become exacerbated. (Messerili, 2010)

Rebuttal of Arguments

While both sides make compelling arguments, the proponents will refute the claims made by the critics. This is accomplished by citing the statistics that other countries are paying for health care, who currently have a universal health care system in place. According to the Kaiser Foundation, the United States spends the most amount of money on health care service of any developed country in the world (where this accounts for 15.3% of GDP spending). When you compare this to other countries that are using universal health system such as: Canada and Great Britain, the overall costs are far less. In this particular situation, Canadians spend 10.0% of GDP spending on health care. While, in Great Britain they spent a total of 8.4% of their GDP on health care. ("Trends in Health Care Costs and Spending," 2006) What this shows, is that while many critics will claim that universal care will increase costs and reduce services, those countries who are using such a system have lower spending in comparison to the United States.