Case against Universal Healthcare

Case against Universal Healthcare

Introduction

United States lacks a universal coverage system. Entrepreneurs guarantee coverage for most Americans while another part of the population chooses private insurance. The terms of most plans include the periodic payment of fees, but sometimes require the advancement of certain amount of the cost of treatment, the amount of which depends on the kind of concerted plan (Brown, 2009). In this paper, two articles are analyzed. These articles have discussed the universal healthcare coverage case in detail.

Discussion

According to the Krugman and Wells (2006), the number of people without insurance, in United States, has grown a lot in recent years. The large number of uninsured people is largely due to the attitude of employers, less and less likely to provide health coverage to their employees. The growth of health care costs has increased insurance premiums and reduced the number of insured persons. People not covered by insurance receive assistance from non-profit hospitals, but overall people uninsured receive a lot less care (less than half) than the rest of the population, with serious health consequences (such as a higher likelihood of dying from for non-cancer prevention) (Diamond, 2009). He deals with the widespread among younger Americans still think the market is more a solution for the future. His answer is short and without restrictions: "But the fact is that the free market does not work for health insurance, and never did." One of his main evidence for this thesis is that the American health care system is still by no means been a working privately financed market system. Rather, it was "a patchwork, semi-private system supported by large government subsidies". The current through the tax deductibility of corporate contributions for health insurance of their employees in addition to the government programs Medicare and Medicaid, public subsidization of private health insurance by Krugman reached an annual budget of $ 190 billion.

There are three crucial issues for Americans care about: cost, quality and access. The first point is the one that resonates within population. This problem affects both the insured and the uninsured. In the short term, however, the goal is to significantly increase health care coverage while striving to control rising health care costs by offering a "middle ground” between "two extremes" interventionism based on federal tax increases for middle classes on the one hand, and the unchallenged domination of insurance companies in the absence of federal regulations worthy of the name, on the other hand. In the United States, compared to other developed countries over the past 30 years disproportionately increased rapidly health care costs, the absence of significant differences in objective indicators of quality health care (Garrett, 2009).

Insurance companies have ample opportunity to discriminate as health, both before and after the conclusion of the insurance contract, including the refusal to pay; there are high risks of personal bankruptcy due to unforeseen health; rapid increase in the cost of public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid critically increase the budget deficit, and long term ...