Question

Based on your success with minimum wage analysis in Assignment #5, the new administration now has a new study for you to conduct. With health care they are considering two alternatives: A system where health care is provided solely by the government (similar to what is in Canada) and another approach where government stays out of the health care market (except for assisting the poor who cannot afford it) and individuals buy health insurance from competing providers. Provide an economic analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of both alternatives and conclude by making a recommendation for one of them. Your work should be 3-4 pages long, in APA format, and make use of at least two scholarly articles that are no more than two years old. Full references must be provided for these articles. The work must be your own and any sources used must be clearly cited (including quotation marks for direct quotes).

Answer 1

Alternative 1: Healthcare is solely provided by the government

Advantages:

1. Inclusion of more individuals under healthcare

2. Expenses would be controlled - private healthcare facilities often charge a high price

3. Increase of general health and fitness awareness among public- inclusion and insurance results in a better health environment of a country. For instance, during 2014-2016, a significant number of Americans took appointments with doctors for diet and fitness purposes.

Distadvantages:

1. Private sector has an incentive to earn profits and hence is more efficient in general. With government owned healthcare, inefficiency could creep in.

2. Unnecessary tests and check-ups: if the costs of healthcare are controlled and people are insured, it could result in extra expenditure on unneccesary procedures.

3. It has been found in some countries that public providers exhibit low levels of technology as well

Alternative 2: Healthcare is provided by private sector

Advantages:

1. The healthcare system would be more efficient since private providers are driven by profit-motive.

2. The poor would still be insured by the government.

Disadvantages:

1. Costs of healthcare would be higher.

2. Inclusion of people under the healthcare system would remain restricted.

Conclusion

Both the alternative have their own merits and demerits. It is hard to say one is better than the other. An ideal situation would be an amalgamation of both the alternatives: a scenario where healthcare remains largely in the hands of private providers, however, for matters of common chronic diseases as well as widespread/popular diseases, the government should take over. This would not only increase the number of people included under healthcare plans of the country, but also help in pushing down costs of the procedures that are relevant to the country.