England vs. United States
Heather Marie Etheredge
This paper is being submitted on May 29, 2013 for Heather Zink’s H200/HSA2117 Section 02 U.S. Healthcare Systems course.
Healthcare is one of the most debated issues in the United States but our government can’t put its differences aside and think about the needs of its citizens first. Universal healthcare will always have its pros and cons as with any new system there will be hindrance. The healthcare system that the United States have right now does not work for all Americans. The healthcare system the United States has affect the citizens that are unemployed, self-employed, or has low income since they cannot afford to pay for healthcare. Every citizen in England has healthcare due to the National Health Service Act of 1946, which is funded mainly by general taxations (England, 2013). In my opinion, I believe that the United States could take a few pointers from England about their healthcare system to achieve universal healthcare for everyone and not just the ones that can afford it.
England’s method to universal healthcare should be a road map for the United States in regards to public funding towards universal healthcare. The National Health Service exploits two basic approaches to start the process of making healthcare available for all citizens not just the employed by expounding on the 1911 health insurance act and providing help with funding and restoring public health services in their country. The first is based on individuals having a right to health care, the second on the idea that society has an obligation to look after the health of its people.
This profound difference in the purpose of health care needs to become part of the debates in the United States (Light, 2003). The United States could benefit greatly from these two approaches by expounding on the healthcare system they have in place already. According to Don McCanne, “Some contend that the poor performance of the United States system is due to the funding of health care in the private sector, and that all would be well if the government would just take over funding.” The United States could expound on the resources that they have in place like taking the current healthcare system out of the private sector and implement a government run system that provides comprehensive healthcare for all and redistributing the taxpayer’s percent that goes into their healthcare expenditures to help control the rising cost of healthcare.
America’s health care spending and costs have risen by a significant amount over the years. There are several different factors that have contributed to this issue and one of those is the aging population; people are living longer and there are more people that require health care, and this also means that we have more people who are on Medicare. There have also been many advances in medical technology which are found to be very costly when implementing. There is also the fact that our physicians are paid fee for service which encourages them to order more diagnostic testing when it is not necessary. Physicians in England are paid a set salary, no more and no less; this contributes to the overall efficiency of their system.
The U.K has a government sponsored healthcare system that consists of several publicly funded healthcare systems thru out the U.K. According to Arthur Donald Light, “Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) was established in the wake of World War II amid a broad consensus that health care should be made available to all (Donald, 2003).” The NHS is administered through 10 regional strategic health authorities who are accountable to the Department of Health. Locally, services are provided through a series of contracts between commissioners of health care services (the 152 PCTs) and providers (hospital trusts, GPs, independent providers). PCTs control around 80 percent of the NHS budget...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document