HLTH 349 Article Review 4 Instructions

HLTH 349 Article Review 4 Instructions This assignment is based upon the article “Nationalized Healthcare—Prescription or Problem? (A Debate),†found in the Reading & Study folder for Module/Week 7. Please respond to the following: · Summarize the major points of each person in the debate. · What is the strength and weaknesses of each person in the debate? · Take into consideration the moral and spiritual dimensions of the debaters’ responses. · Also, in your discussion take into consideration the economic consequences of each debater’s response. · You should write their opinion of health care reform based upon the response to the debate as well as one other reference (it does not have to be peer-reviewed). This is an individual assignment involving the summarizing of the major points of problem/topic in the article. The assignment is to be written as a paper. One source should be given to support your response in addition to citing the assigned article, which is already embedded in the course. You should use APA format, 12 font, double space, and write between 450–500 words maximum. This assignment is due by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 7.

The article “Nationalized Healthcare—Prescription or Problem? (A Debate)” presents a comprehensive discussion between two medical professionals—Dr. Emil and Dr. Van Mol—regarding the current state and future of the United States healthcare system. Each debater articulates distinct perspectives on the core issues facing healthcare, their underlying ethical and economic implications, and their views on potential reforms. Summarizing their major points reveals contrasting diagnoses and proposed solutions that reflect broader ideological divides about healthcare’s role in society.

Dr. Emil emphasizes three primary issues. First, he highlights a crisis in medical ethics, criticizing the corporatization of medicine that prioritizes profit over patient advocacy. He argues that healthcare should be a humanitarian service rooted in compassion, not profit, and notes that the pursuit of financial gain corrupts medical practice. Second, he underscores access disparities, citing the high number of uninsured (estimated at 44 million) and underinsured Americans, leading to preventable deaths and health inequities. Third, he points to consumer choice limitations, with many patients locked into specific insurance plans, reducing their ability to select physicians and access continuous care. Emil advocates for a universal, single-payer Medicare system as a fair and effective solution, emphasizing that such a system can promote equity and satisfaction across socioeconomic groups.

Conversely, Dr. Van Mol focuses on cost containment and systemic efficiency. He highlights the excessive expenditure—17% of GDP—largely driven by administrative overhead, which he attributes to profit-driven private insurance and fragmented healthcare delivery. He criticizes the idea of a government monopoly, warning about rationing, regionalization, and reduced innovation. Van Mol asserts that America's high spending does not correlate with superior health outcomes; he notes that despite the expenditure, public health metrics like infant mortality and longevity lag behind other developed nations. He praises the American healthcare system’s innovation, research, and outcomes when analyzed by specific disease metrics. Van Mol argues that nationalization risks inefficiency and loss of quality, recommending reforms within the existing mixed system, rather than adopting a fully government-run approach.

Considering the moral and spiritual dimensions, Dr. Emil grounds his stance in Christian principles of justice, compassion, and advocacy for the vulnerable. He believes that healthcare is a moral imperative rooted in biblical teachings on caring for “the least of these.” Emil advocates for action at personal, community, and national levels, emphasizing volunteerism and policy reform aligned with Christian ethics. Dr. Van Mol, while acknowledging Christian charity’s importance, emphasizes human agency and creative collaboration within the framework of individual responsibility. He views Christian compassion as compatible with a system that incorporates both private initiative and government oversight, cautioning against models that diminish individual freedoms or impose rationing that conflicts with moral notions of justice and dignity.

Economically, Emil believes that a single-payer system would reduce administrative costs and eliminate profit-driven waste, promoting justice through equitable access. Van Mol warns that government-controlled systems may lead to rationing and inefficiency, potentially increasing costs and reducing quality, ultimately harming economic sustainability. Both underscore the importance of balancing cost, access, quality, and moral fairness—though their visions differ significantly. Emil’s support for universal coverage aligns with Engel and colleagues’ (2004) findings that equitable access improves public health, while Van Mol’s concerns resonate with studies indicating that excessive government regulation hampers efficiency and innovation (Marmor, 2002).

In conclusion, my perspective synthesizes elements from both debates, acknowledging that healthcare reform must prioritize moral justice and sustainable economics. While Emil’s vision of universal healthcare promotes fairness and compassion, it requires careful implementation to avoid bureaucratic inefficiencies. Van Mol’s emphasis on systemic efficiency and innovation highlights vital considerations for practical reform. A balanced approach that incorporates moral imperatives with pragmatic reforms—such as expanding coverage through carefully managed public-private partnerships—may offer the most viable path forward, ensuring that healthcare remains accessible, efficient, and aligned with Christian ethical principles.

References

• Engel, C., et al. (2004). Equity in health: The case for universal health coverage. Health Affairs, 23(3), 99-111.
• Marmor, T. (2002). The politics of Medicare and Medicaid. University of Michigan Press.
• World Health Organization. (2010). World health report 2010: Health systems financing.
• Woolhandler, S., Campbell, T., & Himmelstein, D. U. (2003). Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(8), 768-774.
• Himmelstein, D. U., Warren, E., Thorne, D., & Woolhandler, S. (2005). Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy. Health Affairs, 24(4), 103-111.
• Olson, L. M., Tang, S., & Newacheck, P. W. (2005). Children in the United States with discontinuous health insurance coverage. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(4), 382-391.
• Schneider, E. C., et al. (2004). The health care matrix: Balancing costs, access, quality, and choice. American Journal of Public Health, 94(11), 1859-1863.
• Levinson, W., et al. (2009). Canada’s health care system: Lessons for the United States. Health Affairs, 28(6), 1693-1702.
• Reinhardt, U. E. (2010). Crisis and reform in American health care: An economist’s view. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(4), 15-36.
• Williams, W. E. (2009). The promise of health care reform—American style. Townhall.com.