The most obvious answer is an increase in taxes and the cutting of extraneous federal spending. Yes, by having universal health care the government will have to budget more strategically and plan another expense into its finances. However, politicians fail to realize that this cost can be overridden by a subtle tax increase. Despite the complaints, most Americans agree that they would be willing to pay more taxes in return for more services such as health care (Universal Access 12). Moreover, we should also keep in mind that Americans today pay some of the lowest taxes in the world, and that developed nations in Europe may spend up to one third of their annual salary in taxes.
If the plans are designed properly, it will increase preventative care and on average will consumers will receive a high level of health care. Currently, President Obama has introduced health care reform to Congress. The proposal would make health care coverage more affordable, make health insurers more accountable, expand health coverage to all Americans, and make the health care sustainable. It would stabilize the family budget, the federal budget, and the economy. It would make insurance more affordable and making tax cuts for the middle class.
It also lets know the problems with the respective health care systems over time and lets us know how the country has responded to the problems. This quote helps us learn about the problems with the British health care system, “the NHS faced a problem that still persists six decades later: When you make medical care free, people tend to use a lot of medical care. The NHS exceeded its budget in its first year of operation and in most years thereafter”(Reid Ch7). It is important to know the problems of each health system because it is helpful in deciding if we want to implement that health system in
A third of the American Population without Healthcare…. “Provision of health care is a human right and a country as wealthy as ours should not have a third of its population without access to proper health care.” This is a very meaningful and powerful statement to those who it pertains to, but is this statement true? The pros and cons of this issue are being debated constantly especially with the recent Affordable Healthcare for America Act being passed by the United States House of Representatives. The functionalist theoretical perspective definitely supports the statement and the recent act as they believe that if society is to be stable, then it is important for people to be healthy and to contribute. I am indifferent
First the pro side, the first main issue is the fact that the 32 million Americans that don’t have health care will now have access to health care coverage. Many Americans can’t afford health care coverage and this policy lowers the cost so that more Americans will have the opportunity to get the coverage they need. Another pro is that people with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage. Insurance companies have been getting away with denying people the coverage they need because they either get sick or because they have a preexisting condition and this policy puts an end to all of that. Lastly, the amount of personal bankruptcies will be reduced.
Lack of preventative care is much more expensive in the long term, and it is standard practice at health care facilities to allow emergency care regardless of ability to pay. The cost of this care ends up imposed upon the taxpayer in any case. - The Infrastructure of existing Medicare programs has the potential of expanding to cover the needs of the uninsured who are either children or adults who cannot afford private insurance. - Producing an efficient, client-driven system of national healthcare will force private insurance to become more competitive in terms of their own practices. This trend will benefit all Americans, not merely those who need the public Insurance system.
Recently a new bill was passed (H.R. 3962), which took an important step forward to health care reform. The bill includes a public health insurance option it also prevents insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting sicknesses, and bans insurers for dropping people just because they get sick. The plan would cover 36 million uninsured Americans. One of the goals of socialized medicine is ensuring universal access to health care.
A Letter to the Editor It is Walter Cuffey's opinion that providing free housing and healthcare naturally would diminish people's desire to work for the government and pay their taxes, which in the long run would lead the country to bankruptcy. This contradicts Congressman Jesse Jackson Junior's opinion who believes it simply would create millions of jobs in the housing and health care industries and because of that generate a greater economic prosperity. I do not believe that the free housing Jackson mentions is meant to be expensive and luxurious. However, by free housing I imagine, he in point of fact means shelter, so that no-one in America have to live on the street. Once you have got a roof over your head, a solid base to return to,
In fact, the Universal Health Care will provide fairer coverage, lower costs, and better health to all citizens of the United States. Some American thought the USA does not need Universal Health Care System because they had bought insurance, and
The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, proposed by Barrack Obama, is a revolutionary plan to regulate health care. The plans allow for insurance coverage and protection for uninsured citizens. Most people have the misconception that the plans creates new insurance for people. The plan looks to cover tens of millions uninsured people. The plans, while looking to save money overall, will cause an increase in taxes of citizens (Obama Care).