Single Payer Healthcare System

Canada’s healthcare system is more accessible than the U.S, because Canada’s healthcare system covers all Canadian citizens as opposed to the U.S. healthcare system which depends on a person’s insurance. The U.S healthcare system is an insurance based system. In 2012, the U.S spent 2.8 trillion on healthcare (). Despite such spending on health care, many U.S. residents had no health insurance and several aggregate measures of health quality and outcomes recorded in the USA were poorer than the corresponding data from other high-income countries. In the U.S. if a citizen does not have insurance they will have to pay out of pocket for normal health care services. These out of pocket costs are usually extremely high. To put it in perspective, 18% of U.S citizens do not have health insurance (Costello,

With rising healthcare costs being distributed predominantly on workers or their companies, the economic responsibility is placed on the very people who need it the least: the job creators. If the economic responsibility of healthcare costs was shifted to the government, the private sector job creators could have more revenue to stimulate the economy with additional jobs, better wages, and improved worker benefits. The best way to shift this cost obligation is via a single-payer healthcare system. A single-payer would make sure all citizens would be covered for all medical services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug, and medical supply costs.

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare is a healthcare reform law that is intended to reform the health care system by providing Americans with affordable quality health insurance by controlling the growth in healthcare spending. Some critics of the Affordable Care Act say the ACA has not provided universal coverage, and one way to fix this is to adopt a “single-payer system.” I agree with these critics on the counts of the Single Payer System being a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Doctors and patients regaining healthcare freedom, the accessibility of full coverage, and with financial benefits, the Single Payer System should be adopted by America today.

​There are different models of universal healthcare systems. The first is compulsory insurance which demands that residents should buy insurance; various legislations usually enforce this request.  Another type of universal insurance is the single payer health care system which is defined by the government providing funding for the health care services. The United States health care system uses the former while Canadian system utilizes the latter. The National healthcare insurance program describes the Canadian system as a system run and administered by the government. The health insurance coverage is universal (Ridic, Gleanson, & Ridic, 2012). The United States model, on the other hand, is characterized by a health package that is purchased in the private corporations or offered by the federal administration. The private insurances can be obtained from commercial insurance firms and non-profit insurers. Approximately 84% of United States residents are sheltered bythe government or private insurance (26%) (Ridic, Gleanson, & Ridic, 2012; Earl, Klees, & Curtis, 2000). Additionally, a huge percentage of coverage is employment related. In most cases, employers voluntarily sponsor the health insurance coverage (Ridic, Gleanson, & Ridic, 2012). Evaluation Canadian and US healthcare systems, this study provides an evaluation of the United States and Canadian universal healthcare systems.

The author does list both the pros and cons of a single-payer and addresses and deliberates each side. Finally, the case is made that a single-payer is actually superior to what we currently have, even under the ACA (Oliver).

The United States health care system is quite unique when compared to Canada’s health care system and those of other countries. Canada provides universal coverage, is privately run and is publicly funded through taxes. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not offer universal health coverage. The U.S. is said to be part of the developed world in terms of technology, well trained health professionals and job opportunities although when it comes to health outcomes it doesn’t do so well. Available studies suggest that the health outcomes in Canada were superior to those compared the U.S. The U.S. faces multiple barriers that have made their health care system inconsistent and so costly. In the past the system focused on

In recent years, health care reform has been a heated debate topic throughout the U.S. On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” was signed into law(Health Care). During this same time period, the health care system just north of us, in Canada, has been renowned as the ideal system. The two systems can be compared by looking at the major features of each: provision of care, funding of coverage, and availability of coverage.

According to an overview of Canadian poll surveying public opinion on their universal health care system, 88% of Canadians reported their value for a strong, national, and publically funded health system (Mendelsohn, 2002). Canada is one of the four nations that provide their populations with access to medical services through their universal health care system of 1984 (Bodenheimer & Grumbach, 2008). The Canadian health care system is unique in that it prohibits the private health insurance coverage for the fundamental services that are provided by the Canada Health Act; private insurance can be used as a supplement for services that are either partially covered or not covered under the universal health insurance (Steinbrook, 2006). Conversely, in the American health care system there isn’t a universal health coverage for the nation, but rather four different means of paying for health care which includes patient paying out of pocket for individual payments, individual private insurance, employment-based health insurance, and governmental supporting funding (Bodenheimer & Grumbach, 2008).

Universal healthcare should be available to everyone in the United States, and the best system would be a Canadian-style, single-payer form of national health insurance rather than Obama Care or reliance on private health insurance. Health care is a basic human right, and from an ethical viewpoint, the system in the United States is the most unjust and unequal in the Western world and paradoxically the most expensive as well. Although national health insurance was first proposed as early as 1912, and again during the New Deal and Fair Deal in the 1930s and 1940s, it has always been blocked by powerful corporate interests that have far too much influence on politics and public opinion. Even worse, the injustice of the present system is borne most heavily by the poor, working class, and members of minority groups who lack health care coverage at work and cannot afford private insurance. North of the border, Canada has a far better model for health care and one that most U.S. reformers have demanded since the 1940s. Medicare has been a very popular public service in Canada since it was first passed in 1966, and provides universal health care paid for out of general tax revenue. In the U.S., Medicare covers only those over age 65, but it should be modified into a Medicare for all system, especially if the Supreme Court overturns Obama Care this year.

Despite recent changes that have slightly improved the proficiency and productivity of the American health care system, it continues to be a deficient and muddled operation that damages both the lives and livelihoods of those that depend on its competence. Rather than looking to the efficient systems established by the majority of the developed world, The United States still clings to its archaic and incompetent model of privately controlled health care. This has created a structure where, despite paying nearly twice that of other western countries, the life expectancy and quality of treatment is either the same, or inferior. We spend more tax money per capita than many other nations, spend more as private individuals, and still experience mediocre outcomes that often result in bankruptcy for the person or family attempting to receive proper care (Squires, 2015). Instead of this abhorrent example of incompetence and instability, The United States should switch to a single-payer health care system.

Most liberals and members of the democratic party, as well as many physicians, agree that the U.S. should adopt universal health care, also known as a single-payer system. They argue that the constitution grants this right, as the purpose of the document is to “promote the general welfare” of the nation, and the right to health care falls under that. Not only would a single-payer plan decrease unemployment, but could save lives. The lack of insurance is associated with 44,789 deaths per year in the US. Lastly, health care reform could lower the cost of health care. The UK, a nation that has adopted a universal health care, pays 41.5% of what the U.S. pays for health care, per capita. It appears that the obvious path would be to follow the European

Discussing disparities between the American Health Care System and the Canadian Universal Health Care System

With the implementation of a national health care system, uninsured Americans will be eliminated, prescription drug costs will be lower, and Medicare will be revived in a different form. National health care systems have shown great results in several different countries. National health care systems have been criticized due to exaggeration of minute problems, where critics look for radical results but do not look for the actual benefits of the system (Axworthy and Spiegel 2). To this effect there is no evidence supporting that privatized health care systems are more efficient (Axworthy and Spiegel 2). They are in fact less efficient due to the number of uninsured people. One example of the inefficiency of privatized health care is that the Canadian version of Medicare is less expensive than the American model of Medicare (Axworthy and Spiegel 2).

Healthcare costs represent a high offer of Gross Domestic Product in the United States, with respect to Canada. In 2013, U.S. social insurance spending served 17.1 for every penny of GDP, versus only 10.7 for every penny in Canada, as indicated by an October 2015 report from the Commonwealth Fund (Karen E. Lasser; David U., 2014). Pundits of U.S. social insurance burning through frequently finish up this is unnecessary, forcing a delay American flourishing. It's one motivation behind why legislators, for example, Democratic presidential competitor Bernie Sanders (from the fringe province of Vermont) support Canadian-style, single-payer therapeutic services (Karen E. Lasser; David U., 2014).