In American society healthcare is widely debated topic. Many people and politicians believe in different stances and how in their mind it would be prefect. Some state that healthcare should be free and equal for all, others think that it should be in up to the citizens to pay for it themselves. Along with these views, there are downsides and upsides to both. As a citizen in the United States I believe that the best health care needs compromise. There are two main forms of health care single-payer and multi-player. Single-payer health insurance is the cost covered by the public system, usually paid for through tax dollars. Multi-payer health insurance is letting individuals choose their own insurance from the competing companies. Both are great
…show more content…
Aslo with the greater investment in healthcare, it can lead to long-term savings. It is also available to everyone. Single-payers health insurance relies on tax collection. One way tax collection works is if the government is strong, meaning that they can collect taxes. Since America had a good tax collection, we could have everyone pay this tax and the revenue generated from this would pay for our health care, letting everyone have access to health care.
Single-payer is non beneficial system if your country's government is not strong enough to enforce taxation for health care. Countries that have low and middle income, the source of revenue from collecting taxes is not high, this would not be ideal for them. With taxing, citizens do not have a say in how much is taken out.
Multi-payer health insurance is beneficial do to the fact that they, “ do not expect to receive returns on investments in preventive health care” (source). Meaning that they do not make profit on prescribing medicine that would help stop/prevent disease or illness. Multiplayer health insurance would be more beneficial, because people can select how much they …show more content…
Taking the good and the bad, I believe that the best choice today would be having a compromise of both health cares. In the “German health care ... everyone is guaranteed insurance coverage, but nonetheless the well-off are allowed to opt into private insurance coverage which gives them better access to health care because providers are paid higher rates” (source). With this in mind, both are dewable. I think a strong compromise needs to be met. Aspects that need to be taken from single-payer health is that everyone will be taxed and how much citizens will be taxed will be determined on income. Also there will not be any tax exemption or evations for this tax. If the higher income citizens choose to buy insurance privately on top of the health care provided by tax dollars they may do so. As for multi-payer health insurance before it can be put into effect regulations will need to be in place first. These include that doctors will not get a percent of the profit if they prescribe medicine that will not help or cure illnesses. This incentivises them to prescribe drugs that will work for the illnesses. As for people buying private insurance, there will be a slight benefit but not much, maybe if they call in for an appointment they can be seen first, but that is it. The care and treatments would be the same and if citizens have private insurance they do not get priority if they are severely injured, it is a matter of who is hurt worse and
Aslo with the greater investment in healthcare, it can lead to long-term savings. It is also available to everyone. Single-payers health insurance relies on tax collection. One way tax collection works is if the government is strong, meaning that they can collect taxes. Since America had a good tax collection, we could have everyone pay this tax and the revenue generated from this would pay for our health care, letting everyone have access to health care.
Single-payer is non beneficial system if your country's government is not strong enough to enforce taxation for health care. Countries that have low and middle income, the source of revenue from collecting taxes is not high, this would not be ideal for them. With taxing, citizens do not have a say in how much is taken out.
Multi-payer health insurance is beneficial do to the fact that they, “ do not expect to receive returns on investments in preventive health care” (source). Meaning that they do not make profit on prescribing medicine that would help stop/prevent disease or illness. Multiplayer health insurance would be more beneficial, because people can select how much they …show more content…
Taking the good and the bad, I believe that the best choice today would be having a compromise of both health cares. In the “German health care ... everyone is guaranteed insurance coverage, but nonetheless the well-off are allowed to opt into private insurance coverage which gives them better access to health care because providers are paid higher rates” (source). With this in mind, both are dewable. I think a strong compromise needs to be met. Aspects that need to be taken from single-payer health is that everyone will be taxed and how much citizens will be taxed will be determined on income. Also there will not be any tax exemption or evations for this tax. If the higher income citizens choose to buy insurance privately on top of the health care provided by tax dollars they may do so. As for multi-payer health insurance before it can be put into effect regulations will need to be in place first. These include that doctors will not get a percent of the profit if they prescribe medicine that will not help or cure illnesses. This incentivises them to prescribe drugs that will work for the illnesses. As for people buying private insurance, there will be a slight benefit but not much, maybe if they call in for an appointment they can be seen first, but that is it. The care and treatments would be the same and if citizens have private insurance they do not get priority if they are severely injured, it is a matter of who is hurt worse and