Health Care Privatization

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that, unlike national health care, a government-operated, tax-funded system, the type of system, which is currently operated in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and other countries,the majority of health care funding in the U.S. comes from the private sector. The author points out that advocates of national health care ague it would reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary, duplicative paperwork, adopting mechanisms to stretch health care dollars, such as bulk purchasing of medications, and implementing measures to control future health care costs, such as negotiating fair fees with doctors and budgets with hospitals. But some economists put the cost of national health care reform at $339 billion per year in additional taxes. The paper concludes that the only people who are really better off are the uninsured, with everyone else footing their bill and sacrificing their own health care, which isn't a good option for most working Americans because national health care expands coverage to all by raising taxes, rationing services, and limiting modern medicine.

From the Paper:

"Those in favor of national health care also believe that our health care is inadequate compared to other countries with national health care. The U.S. spends more per person on health care than any other country in the world, but the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the overall quality of health care that it provides. We are the only industrialized country that lacks universal health care. More than forty-two million Americans have no health insurance, with access distributed unequally among rich and poor and among the races."

More papers on Health Care Privatization:

• Essay # 37561 : "Canadian Health Care"
• Essay # 70815 : "Health Care"
• Comparison Essay # 47522 : "UK Nationalized Health Care System"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: