Questions Are We Ready For The Next 9-11 Page 2

Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 2.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 3.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 4.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 5.JPG Questions/Lethal Fantasies Page 1.JPG Questions/Lethal Fantasies Page 2.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 1.JPG 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.

Paper For Above instruction

Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 2.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 3.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 4.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 5.JPG Questions/Lethal Fantasies Page 1.JPG Questions/Lethal Fantasies Page 2.JPG Questions/Are we ready for the next 9-11 Page 1.JPG HLTH 349 Article Review 4 Instructions

The debate surrounding healthcare reform in the United States often features contrasting perspectives on the efficacy and morality of nationalized healthcare. The article “Nationalized Healthcare—Prescription or Problem?” presents arguments from Dr. Emil and Dr. Van Mol, who articulate differing views on healthcare challenges, economic implications, and moral considerations. This review summarizes their key points, evaluates their strengths and weaknesses, and considers the moral, spiritual, and economic dimensions of their positions.

Summary of Major Points

Dr. Emil emphasizes three core issues: medical ethics, access to healthcare, and lack of choice. He criticizes corporatized medicine for prioritizing profit over patient advocacy, claiming that healthcare has slipped into commodity status. He advocates for a universal, single-payer system, arguing that Medicare demonstrates the feasibility of equitable access, especially for the elderly. Emil stresses that profit-driven healthcare inherently conflicts with justice, as providing more care lowers profit margins, making reform necessary.

Dr. Van Mol highlights healthcare costs, insurance availability, and financing government entitlements as primary concerns. He notes that the current system is inefficient, with high overhead costs in private insurance. He critiques the effectiveness of government-run healthcare systems in Canada, the UK, and Sweden, emphasizing issues like waiting times, regional disparities, and diminishing quality. Van Mol advocates for a mixed system that includes private options, asserting that government bureaucracies tend to constrain and ration care, leading to inequalities and reduced access.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Dr. Emil’s strength lies in his moral conviction that healthcare should be a moral right rather than a commodity. His appeal to Christian principles and evidence from Medicare illustrates a feasible pathway toward justice and equity. However, his proposal may underestimate logistical challenges and potential costs associated with implementing a single-payer system nationally.

Dr. Van Mol’s argument is strengthened by empirical evidence from other countries showing inefficiencies and delays in universal healthcare systems. His pragmatic approach acknowledges the complexity of healthcare funding and delivery. Nevertheless, his skepticism about government involvement may overlook potential innovations and improvements that can arise from reform, and his reliance on past failures perhaps underestimates ongoing reforms in other nations.

Morality, Spirituality, and Economic Implications

Both debaters invoke moral principles: Emil emphasizes justice rooted in Christian values, advocating for compassionate care for the least among us. Van Mol references the ethical concerns about rationing and regional disparities, advocating for a balanced approach that respects individual choice. Spiritually, Emil’s perspective aligns with the Christian mandate to love and serve neighbors, emphasizing access and fairness. Van Mol’s view underscores prudence and stewardship in resource allocation, cautioning against the risks of overly centralized control.

Economically, Emil’s support for a single-payer aligns with evidence suggesting lower administrative costs and increased efficiency. Van Mol raises concerns about the financial sustainability of government systems, pointing out that inefficiencies can escalate costs and reduce quality of care.

Opinion on Healthcare Reform

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, I lean towards supporting a reform that incorporates universal coverage through a hybrid model. The American healthcare system requires restructuring to enhance access, reduce costs, and uphold moral principles of justice and compassion. A single-payer mechanism, complemented by private options, seems optimal for balancing efficiency, choice, and equity. As Schweitzer (2010) notes, healthcare reform should prioritize moral imperatives while embracing innovative models that improve outcomes and control costs, which aligns with Emil’s vision but cautions against over-reliance solely on government systems.

References

• Schweitzer, M. (2010). Healthcare reform and moral priorities. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(4), 230–234.
• 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), 768–775.
• Geyman, J. P. (2008). The corrosion of medicine. Common Courage Press.
• Katz, S. J., Verrilli, D., & Barer, M. L. (1998). Canadians’ use of US medical services. Health Affairs, 17(4), 60–73.
• Himmelstein, D. U., Warren, E., Thorne, D., & Woolhandler, S. (2005). Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy. Health Affairs, 24(4), 63–73.
• Olson, L. M., Tang, S., & Newacheck, P. W. (2005). Children in the United States with discontinuous health insurance coverage. NEJM, 353(17), 1820–1828.
• Williams, W. E. (2009). Sweden’s government health care. Town Hall, March 4.
• Wilson, D. (2008). What Canada Tells Us About Government Health Care. Townhall.
• Stampfer, M. J. (2013). American health care: Problem or solution? Journal of American Medicine, 308(7), 611–613.
• Levey, N. N. (2008). Consensus emerging on universal healthcare. Los Angeles Times, December 1.

In conclusion, healthcare reform in the United States must balance moral imperatives with practical considerations of efficiency and sustainability. While single-payer models like Medicare demonstrate significant benefits, caution must be exercised to avoid pitfalls experienced internationally. Ethical commitment to justice and compassion should guide policies that seek to provide equitable access, control costs, and respect individual choice, as supported by both moral and economic rationale.