Abstract
A public healthcare option is needed to provide better health services to the citizens of this country. Across Europe and Asia, numerous countries are providing their nation with a healthcare option that is sponsored by the government, and several individuals believe that the United States can do the same. Those who are opposed to this form of health care reform state that although the intentions seem noble, the plan would put a strain on the nation’s fragile economy. There are 46 million Americans that are uninsured, and a public option would make basic healthcare services available for these vulnerable individuals. Canada, France, and Japan demonstrate excellent examples of how the public option is serving their people. Americans can learn from them by examining their positive achievement as well as their systems short comings.
The Obama Health Plan: Pros and Cons of a Public Option
Torrey, T (2008), describes universal healthcare as a basic healthcare service that is provided for the citizens of a specific geographical location. Universal healthcare has been mistaken for a single-payer system funded by the government, which is an incorrect definition of the program. The countries that offer their citizens universal health coverage do so through public-private combinations. The United States is the only wealthy and industrialized nation that does not provide health coverage to all of its citizens. When discussing healthcare reform, the opponents of universal healthcare not only refer to it as a single-payer plan, but also as socialized medicine; none of which are accurate definitions.
In a 2008, an article, www.insurancespecialists.com, reports on the growing public support for a government administered healthcare system. Several individuals share the belief that if Canada, Europe, and several South American countries can provide healthcare for all, then America should be able to do the same. Critics of a universal program consider that the US government is not in a better position than the private sector to administer this country’s health needs. Opponents of a government healthcare option present a few negative issues that will develop from President Obama’s healthcare approach. Some of the claims against a public option state that people will be denied the right to choose their own physician. There are a few concerns about the proposed government plans, such as HMOs and PPOs being terminated, and a decrease in medical student enrollment due to a government involvement in healthcare. Those in favor of this type of reform state physicians salaries will not a decrease, and that reform will limit unnecessary incentives.
Without a public option, there is no actual reform to the United States Health care system. Providing health coverage through the government will benefit numerous amounts of individuals. Government must focus on providing the best possible benefits for its citizens instead of looking out for corporate interests and profits that are reserved for a few people in high ranking positions (Johnson, D. 2009). A public option will prompt private insurers, doctors, hospital and pharmaceutical companies to provide high quality care at a lower cost that they do now. No other issue in healthcare has been so heavily opposed; those who lobby against the public option fear major reforms that will consequently bring about heavy losses in their profits (Reich, R. 2009).
The California Nurses Association (2009) believes that the biggest problem of Pres. Obama’s approach to healthcare is not with his public option, but with private insurances that are responsible for the skyrocketing cost that oppress the American people. Nothing in the President’s plan will end the constant denial of coverage that people have endured from the insurance companies. Insurance companies are denying nearly one fourth of all medical claims filled in the state of California. The United States is the only wealthy nation that allows this type of injustice to be committed against its people.
Bobby Sage (2009) thinks timing and presentation will help Pres. Obama to pass healthcare reform. America has had some time to analyze the healthcare system, along with the out of control cost that seems to have no end in sight. Those that previously opposed a universal healthcare system have now reconsidered their prior point of view. Americans are very concerned that nothing is being done to fix this problem.
Klein, E. (2009) reports that France, Germany and Japan provide great examples of efficient public health options in industrialized nations. One prime example is in Japan; private policies are only used to decrease co-pays, and in France the government provides all basic care to its citizens. Germany has laws against insurers being able to make profits; laws that would make right wingers nauseous. He believes that these countries are proving that with more government intervention, the cost of healthcare is decreased, and treatment outcomes are being improved.
Cohn (2009) states that France has set up non-profit sickness fund for its citizens and individuals, who are allowed to purchase supplemental insurance of their own. The creation of a public-private healthcare system, along with government involvement in price regulation and budgeting keeps the French healthcare costs down. Opponents of the public option state that this type of reform will bring unwanted consequences such as long waiting period to see a specialist. The French health system contradicts this theory; in France individual seeking specialist care do not have to wait any longer than individuals seeking similar services in America (Cohn, J. 2009).
In a story for the Dallas morning news, Jim Landers relates the experience of Jennifer Hau and her husband; a Texas couple who had their first two children in their home town of Houston, and their last two in Paris, France. Mrs. Hau believes that the American healthcare system is too expensive and often very insecure; living in France has given them the access to excellent and affordable care. The health system that the French government provides encourages their residents to put their health ahead of their financial concerns. In France, people are able to seek immediate help when presented with an illness, in contrast to the US system where individuals often self medicate for fear of not being able to afford proper treatment.
Stephanie Brunner, shares some impressive figures of reimbursement and coverage in France. Patients can pay for healthcare services, and later get government reimbursement for their expenditures. Family visits to primary care physicians and specialists are reimbursed at a rate of 70%. Major surgery is reimbursed at 90% and minor surgery at 80%. Pregnancy and childbirth are reimbursed by 95-100% and finally, x-rays and routine dental care 70%.
Mr. Cohn conducted dozens of interviews with French citizens, which included politicians, patients, and healthcare providers and never encountered a person who would favor the American healthcare system over the French. The French are receiving what Americans want from health care, quality care without long waiting periods. Physicians are able to better practice medicine because they don’t have to worry about managing healthcare benefits. The French are not going bankrupt as a result of medical cost, and they do not avoid treatment in fear of unaffordable bills. The French have developed an effective system that cost far less than what the average American house hold pays for health coverage.
Shapiro, J. (2008) shares a study done by the World Health Organization in 2000. 191 countries were studied and ranked on the number of years people lived in good health, and whether everyone had access to good healthcare. France ranked first, providing the best healthcare in the world, the US was ranked 37th. In 2008 the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine conducted an investigation called “amenable mortality”, in simple terms the deaths that could be prevented with good healthcare. The research examined 19 industrialized nations; again France ranked at the top of the list, and unfortunately, the US found itself at the bottom. Experts in America are now convinced that there is a lot that the US government can learn from the French.
Wikipedia talks about how the Canadian government provides a publicly-funded healthcare system that is almost completely free. Our northern neighbors have found simple ways of keeping healthcare costs low. They strive to maintain private insurance involvement to a minimum, this way decreasing competitive practices, such as advertising and lobbying. Mainly, health care costs are paid through income taxes, and three provinces impose a fixed income based monthly premium; there are no co-pays or deductibles for basic care services. The Canadian healthcare system ensures that everyone gets the same level of care. There is no need for a variety of plans because basic care is always covered. Healthcare coverage is not affected by a loss or change of job, as long as premiums are up to date, and there are no lifetime limits or pre-existing conditions.
Japan, well known for its technological advances that have produced quality gadgets, is producing the world’s healthiest people (Reid, T.R., 2008). Although their life expectancy is higher due to diet and lifestyle, the public healthcare option has been significant in keeping the Japanese healthy. Everyone in Japan is required to have a health insurance policy; the government assists those individuals who are not able to afford health coverage. The Japanese government keeps cost low by tightly controlling the cost of healthcare to the smallest detail (Reid, T.R. 2008). In doing this, the government keeps the premiums at an average cost of $280 per month for the average Japanese family. Employers pick up half the cost of health care and losing your job does not cancel your insurance policy.
Yamamoto, A. (2009) states that the Japanese visit a doctor on average nearly 14 times a year; four times more than Americans. They are able to choose any doctor or specialist they want, and are able to receive same day care. The Japanese people benefit from laws that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions. Insurance companies are obligated to ensure everyone, including individuals with chronic illnesses.
Reid (2008) also reports on some negative aspects of the Japanese healthcare plan. Several doctors express concerns and frustration regarding low profits that come from their hard work. Reid tells the story of a doctor found creative ways to make more money. The doctor had 4 vending machines in his practice, and charge $4/hr in a section of town where there’s free off street parking. According to Reid T.R. (2008), 50% of Japan’s hospitals are on the brink of bankruptcy, while the United States probably spends too much on health care, Japan may be spending too little. Japan has $10 a night hospital stays, which does not go far when trying to balance the books (Reid, T.R. 2008).
Several theories and ideas exist regarding this controversial topic, creating a mixture myths and facts. We can be certain of a few things, the benefits of a public option are far better than the consequences of doing nothing. Although our President assures us that the plan won’t add to the national deficit or raise taxes for the majority of Americans, the plan must received some form of substantial funding. According to the Seattle Post, Pres. Obama’s Health plan will cost about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, which has several Americans who view this plan as unaffordable worried (Zaldivar, A. 2009).
The high price tag of our President’s healthcare plan may be troubling Americans regardless of party affiliation. Pres. Obama’s plan may not be perfect, but it provides a blueprint which the government can use to create a better system over a few years. Citizens may benefit if the government is able to regulate the business practices of private insurance companies. France and Japan have been able to set laws that prohibit discrimination by private insurance companies regardless of a client’s health condition. If the government is able to pass healthcare reform that includes a public option, Americans will be able to better care for themselves, and have an increase in quality of life.
The health of the American public should be the priority of every senator and representative in congress. Government officials must work together to provide the reform that will provide affordable and quality of care for all individuals. There are 46 million Americans that are currently uninsured. Canada, France and Japan have demonstrated different ways of providing coverage for their entire population. Although these governments sponsored systems may not be perfect in nature, the United States can learn from them, and formulate a plan that will be more beneficial to Americans in the near future.
References
Brunner, S. (2004). The French Healthcare System. Retrieved October 3, 2009 from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9994.php
California Nurses Association (2009). America's Registered Nurses To Obama: Public Option Should Be Access To The Congressional Plan, But Best Solution Is To Expand Medicare To Everyone. Retrieved: 10/01/2009 from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/163531.php
Cohn, J. (2009). Healthy Examples. Retrieved November 7, 2009 from: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/05/healthy_examples_plenty_of_countries_get_healthcare_right/
Dennis, T. (2009). Glance at a Public Option. Retrieved November 4, 2009 from: http://tkdennis.com/2009/10/11/glance-at-a-public-healthcare-option/
Growing Support for Universal Healthcare (2008). Retrieved October 1, 2009 from: http://www.insurancespecialists.com/industry-articles/universal-health-care/
Klein, E. (2009). Kent Conrad Hearts the French Healthcare System? Retrieved October 1, 2009 from: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/kent_ conrad_hearts_ the_french.html
Landers, J. (2009). Is French Health System a Model for US? Retrieved October 4, 2009 from: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051709dnbusfrance.40cc221.html
Reid, T. (2008). Japanese Pay Less for Healthcare. Retrieved November 7, 2009 from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89626309
Sage, B. (2009). The Obama Presentation May Just Give America the Health Care Reform She Wants. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from: http://personalinsure.about.com/od/health/a/aa041409a.htm
Shapiro, J. (2008). Healthcare Lessons from France. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
Torrey, T. (2008). What is Universal Healthcare Coverage? It’s Not the Same as “Single Payer” Healthcare. Retrieved October 3, 2009 from: http://patients.about.com/od/healthcarereform/a/universal.htm
Weisbrot, M. (2009). Health Care Reform Is Needed Now More than Ever. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/health-care-reform-is-nee_b_171210.html
Wikipedia (2009). Healthcare in Canada (2008). Retrieved October 4, 2009 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#The_beginning_of_coverage
Yamamoto, A. (2009). Universal Healthcare in Japan. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/06/AR2009090601630_3.html?sid=ST2009090601646
Zaldivar, A. (2009). Experts Say Cost of Obama Health Care Plan Could Top $1.5 Trillion. Retrieved November 7, 2009 from: http://www.californiahealthline.org/Articles/2009/3/18/Experts-Say-Cost-of-Obama-Health-Care-Plan-Could-Top-15-Trillion.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment