The U.S. Single-Payer Universal Health Care Plan
So here is what I came up with in my final paper for Justice and Health Care class; what do you think?
While a number of citizens of the U.S. are able to benefit from a society where the best health care in the world is available to those who can afford it, many of her citizens do not even have the means to benefit from the simplest of medical procedures. The purpose of governments ought to be the protection of its citizens and their rights. How then, can a government protect its citizens without providing adequate health care to keep them alive and well? America has a responsibility to provide every one of its citizens an equal access to health care and continuing support of research and implementation of new technologies, which aid in improving the lives of its citizens. Simply, the United States ought adopt a similar health care plan to that of the Canadians, with emphasis on continuing the excellence in health care research and services the U.S. is famed for.
Many would argue the well-to-do in the U.S. have access to the newest technology and best medical professionals in the world to solve their health problems, but at what cost does it come the rest of society? With, what some say the best, medicine in the world available in the U.S., there were 45 million medically uninsured Americans in 20031; that was 15.6% of her population unable to receive this care. In articulating the U.S. governments responsibility to provide a single-payer system of health care to all of her citizens and to continue research and use of new technological advances in medicine which improves their lives, this paper will discuss one’s universal right to healthcare, the justice of a single-payer system, a commitment to continued research, funding, as well as oppositions to the previous arguments. It will draw from the Canadian system of health care, James Sterba, Norman Daniels and Kai Nielson.
posted by Pete at 5:53 PM
8 Comments:
"there were 45 million medically uninsured Americans in 20031"... Pete, you're pyschic!
Seriously, though, I don't know where I stand on this. In theory, a single tier system is preferable. However, I do not know if it can be implemented in the United States, as our system is designed around the HMO.
Also, I am interested in your thoughts, Peter-- and definetely Jason and Michelle, if you share Peter's opinion-- on how the United States' exemplary research can be sustained if the doctor's pay incentive evaporates? Simply, if doctors' pay is cut (which it absolutely must be in a single, tier publicly funded system) what is the motivation for an individual to become a doctor? And what is her motivation to innovate if the system does not protect patent royalties (because certainly drug costs- and by extension, patent protection- would change if the gov't was shouldering prozac costs... generic, generic, generic!!).
How can we guarantee innovation within your system, Peter?
I am excited to learn more!
i'm afraid to say anything, because petah will just accuse me of towing the party line...
I copied the first two paragraphs from my paper and that is why it reads 20031; the one was a foot note. As to Bird's well justified statements:
1. I got the highest grade in the class on the paper, so I must be right
2. Research insentives shouldn't dwindle by much, because the US will have to stay commited to research by spending money saved by joining a single-tiered system. The Cannucks spend on average $2000/person/annum on health care and everyone is covered. Americans spend on average $5500/person/annum and 45 million people are covered. Switching to the single-payer system could potentially free up $3500 that is already spent on health care, of that we need to be committed in spending a good portion of it to ensure research and spending on new technology ensues.
3. If doctors aren't as much for the money, maybe we will stop getting crap out of them like Vioxx and will ensure that they try to put the best product out there and not be worried about their new "big dick" car as Jason would point out. We need more doctors like that.
To be honest, I don't feel knowledgeable enough on this topic to comment too heavily upon it, but I do have a few points and questions.
First off Peter, just because your teacher thinks you're right, doesn't mean your teacher's right.
I do think, Bertie, that even if the large pay incentive evaporates for doctors, that people will still have motivation to become doctors. However, medical school is expensive and pay for that would have to be determined (as their future job may not as easily pay off the loans they would have to take out).
Peter, you note that this would be similar to the Canadian system. There is concern, however, for the development of research and the supply of machines. The United States has 18 times more MRI's than does Canada - which, for Canadians, means long waiting lists of possibly up to four months (Harper's). Is it possible that with the same sort of system, we could run into similar problems?
And finally, Jason - copout on your part.
Fair play to Michelle-- genius comments!! Very interesting-- thanks for making us think!
side note: how come it notes at what time you post, but not what day?
So I turned ended up turning this paper in at the last minute for a call for papers, so we will soon find out how well my ideas hold up...
Well... they didn't like... at least not enouh to let me present it at their anual conference. Oh well, I guess poor people are going to have to continue selling their organs to pay to get their cut stitched up.
Post a Comment
<< Home