Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Health Care Finance
Greenwald engages in a discussion comparing the U.S. health care system to, well, other health care systems. An interesting methodological fault is that Greenwald cherry-picks his examples. In one paragraph, he compares the U.S. with Canada, in other the UK, and in another Spain. The problem, methodologically, is that he can cherry-pick data from whatever country best suits his argument. What this means, in terms of interpretation, is that Greenwald's findings need to be taken with a grain of salt. As an example, Greenwald notes higher wait times in three countries for urgent coronary artery bypass. Nobody likes high wait times, but Greenwald's U.S. figure doesn't factor in the uninsured, whose wait time is infinity. They just die. The issue many have with the U.S. system is not that performance is poor; it is that performance is only good when you can afford it.
This cuts to the heart of the difference between the U.S. And other industrialized countries. The trade-off between quality of care and universal care exists in any nation. The trade-off that other countries have made is that they have chosen universal care, even when there are times when service standards are lower....
In the U.S., there has never been a strong collective motivation to make that trade-off. There are reasons for this, and they are more social that medical. While some have argued that lobbyists are the issue, I disagree with that assessment, because most other nations adopted universal health care long before lobbyists took over the U.S. government. The lack of universal health care in the U.S., therefore, is more related to social factors. The erosion of the manufacturing base has in turn eroded the sort of jobs where working class Americans can get health insurance; replace such jobs with part-time retail and the number of insured will decrease. Further, at-risk groups such as the poor, African-Americans, Native Americans and the disabled are disproportionally uninsured (Link & Phelan, 1996). There is a certain lack of concern with the well-being of these groups that has resulted in a lack of desire to provide insurance for them. It's kind of the elephant in the room -- while Canada and Europe were developing universal health care, a lot of parts of the United States were having trouble wrapping their head around desegregation in schools. We should not be so naive as to think this mentality does not…
This cuts to the heart of the difference between the U.S. And other industrialized countries. The trade-off between quality of care and universal care exists in any nation. The trade-off that other countries have made is that they have chosen universal care, even when there are times when service standards are lower. In the U.S., there has never been a strong collective motivation to make that trade-off. There are reasons for this, and they are more social that medical. While some have argued that lobbyists are the issue, I disagree with that assessment, because most other nations adopted universal health care long before lobbyists took over the U.S. government. The lack of universal health care in the U.S., therefore, is more related to social factors. The erosion of the manufacturing base has in turn eroded the sort of jobs where working class Americans can get health insurance; replace such jobs with part-time retail and the number of insured will decrease. Further, at-risk groups such as the poor, African-Americans, Native Americans and the disabled are disproportionally uninsured (Link & Phelan, 1996). There is a certain lack of concern with the well-being of these groups that has resulted in a lack of desire to provide insurance for them. It's kind of the elephant in the room -- while Canada and Europe were developing universal health care, a lot of parts of the United States were having trouble wrapping their head around desegregation in schools. We should not be so naive as to think this mentality does not play a role in public opposition to universal health care. As well, health care costs were manageable and for most, the system has worked reasonably well. This means there was no impetus for change -- only recently with the explosion of health care costs has there been concern about paying for health insurance even from the middle class.
Costs
There are a number of reasons why health care costs are lower in other nations. Greenwald notes that American health care facilities are more likely to invest in the most modern equipment. I wish he did not cherry-pick his supporting evidence ("seniors in Miami in the last six months of their lives receive the best care anywhere in the world") because this is a fairly demonstrable reality. At the top end, the U.S. health care system is usually better than in other countries. The fault Greenwald has is not following through and asking why this is. He is correct in pointing out that the best care can and should cost more. But facilities invest so heavily for two key
Meanwhile, without any competition, such as n the form of a public healthcare insurance system, the private healthcare insurance industry also continually increases premium fees virtually at will (Kennedy, 2006; Reid, 2009). Furthermore, by refusing policies to high-risk patients, private health insurers essentially "cherry pick" the lowest risk patients while leaving the most expensive medical services to be furnished at the public's expense by public funds available to provide healthcare
United States and National Healthcare Insurance: A Winning Proposition? Physical health and well-being are among the most basic needs and desires of human beings. We all hope that neither ourselves nor our families will ever be the victims of sickness, incapacitation, or any other malady. We hope too that if we ever do require the services of professional Healthcare providers we will not be bankrupted by the expense. Yet, it is
Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) legislation is patently an improvement to the health care delivery system. The mere fact that thousands upon thousands of people are receiving healthcare and medical service through the Affordable Care Act is testimony to the scope of the improvement in healthcare services. But there is much more to the equation than absolute numbers of people now receiving medical and health care services through
Health Care Disparities Race Related Healthcare disparities Serial number Socioeconomic status and health Correlation between socioeconomic status and race Health insurance and health Who are the uninsured people? Causes of health care disparities Suggestions for better health care system The latest studies have shown that in spite of the steady developments in the overall health of the United States, racial and ethnic minorities still experience an inferior quality of health services and are less likely to receive routine medical
Health Care Delivery Systems The structure and organization of the resources that make it possible to provide health care services to target populations is referred to as a health care system. The variety of health care systems is very wide with strong evolutionary histories tied to the governments, religious organizations, charitable organizations, labor unions, and for-profit market participants. Five Health Care Delivery Systems Reid set out around the world to study healthcare systems
Healthcare System of Norway Health Policy of Norway Analysis of Health Policy Pressures on Health Care Delivery High Cost Ageing Population Increased Diseases Waiting-time Prioritization The healthcare systems are developed to provide necessary healthcare facilities. It is also aimed to maintain health of their citizen in compliance with the state and international regulations. Norway is considered as one of the country, holding prominent place in global economy as well as growth rate and per capita income (Pontusson2011). It