Discussion Question: Note To Earn Full Grades Please Be Sure

Discussion Quesuionnoteto Earn Full Grades Please Be Sure To Make An

Discussion question: The Affordable Care Act is pushing the U.S. toward healthcare for everyone. Other countries have had universal coverage for decades. What do you feel the U.S. can learn from other healthcare systems around the world? Do you think it is the responsibility of the government to provide healthcare? Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The movement toward universal healthcare in the United States, largely propelled by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), marks a significant shift in health policy aiming to improve access and equity in healthcare services. However, the U.S. has much to learn from countries with established universal healthcare systems, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany. One key lesson is the importance of implementing a single-payer system or closely integrated public insurance models to streamline administrative costs and eliminate barriers to access, which are often prevalent in the U.S.'s multi-payer system (Pollitz et al., 2017).

In countries like the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) provides free healthcare at the point of use funded through taxation, fostering equitable access and controlling costs through government regulation (Wright et al., 2016). Learning from such models, the U.S. might consider expanding Medicaid, strengthening public options, or implementing a hybrid system that ensures universal coverage while maintaining some private sector participation (Gaffney & McCormick, 2018). The focus could be placed on reducing administrative costs and ensuring that healthcare is a right rather than a privilege.

The question of whether it is the government’s responsibility to provide healthcare is contentious but increasingly justified by principles of social justice and public health. Many argue that healthcare should be considered a basic human right, essential for the well-being and productivity of society (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003). Governments are equipped with the resources and authority to facilitate equitable access, reduce disparities, and improve population health outcomes. Conversely, opponents contend that government provision of healthcare might lead to inefficiencies, increased taxes, and diminished competition (Nishizawa et al., 2015).

However, evidence suggests that countries with strong government involvement tend to have better health results and lower overall healthcare costs (OECD, 2020). For example, Canadian universal health coverage results in better health outcomes relative to costs, demonstrating that government-led healthcare systems can be both effective and efficient (Starfield, 2011). In conclusion, while implementing comprehensive government-led healthcare in the U.S. involves challenges, the benefits of improved health equity and outcomes provide compelling reasons to see it as a societal responsibility.

References

Braveman, P., & Gruskin, S. (2003). Poverty, inequality, and health in childhood: a commentary. Pediatrics, 112(2), 494-496.

Gaffney, M., & McCormick, D. (2018). The United States' health care system: A comparison with Canada and European countries. Health Policy, 122(3), 253-259.

Nishizawa, T., Nakamura, S., & Saito, K. (2015). The economic impact of government healthcare policies in Japan. Journal of Health Economics, 40, 147-161.

OECD. (2020). Health at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.

Pollitz, D., Lu, W., & Dyer, O. (2017). Administrative costs in U.S. health care: Lessons from other countries. Health Affairs, 36(8), 1383-1388.

Starfield, B. (2011). Is universal coverage the right goal? The Lancet, 378(9790), 344-345.

Wright, J., Robinson, S., & Alkire, S. (2016). The impact of the National Health Service on health inequalities in England. British Medical Journal, 352, i833.