Question

Compare and contrast the two different methods of rationing healthcare (Single-payer versus Private Health Care). Explain the pros and cons of each system. Explain which system you think would be better and more efficient in producing healthcare in the United States and why. Also, discuss whether you think the United States should move to a single-payer healthcare system, including why this would or would not be beneficial to the citizens of this country. You may also want to do some outside research here.

Answer 1

Pros and Cons of Single-payer health-care system

Single payer healthcare system is a method of rationing the healthcare where exists a single agency that takes the authority to finance healthcare of all the citizens or residents of that particular country. This system ensures that each and every resident in a country are covered under a single health insurance plan and will be provided with all kinds of healthcare services. Single payer system advocates the principle of equality by providing equal and universal coverage to all the residents of an economy It is argued that this system can control the total expenses and bring down the unnecessary spendings. The administrative costs are very comparatively less for the single-payer healthcare system. This system will be more helpful to channelize the healthcare spending towards public health care measures at lower costs and in an efficient manner. Some of the criticisms associated with this system are that it may have time-consuming procedures and restriction on the availability of certain healthcare services(elective surgery, cosmetic procedures).

Pros and Cons of Private healthcare system

The private healthcare system is a method of providing healthcare where various private agencies other than the government or government-related agencies who finance healthcare to the people in a country. This system ensures the health insurance coverage to a section of people especially the rich who can afford the increased premiums of the private healthcare agencies. They often avoid the poor sections of the economy and spread the idea of inequality among the residents of the country. They provide advanced, instant and well-equipped healthcare facilities to their customers. This system provides timely services and provides excellent customer care service to assure more privacy and care to the customers. Cost of healthcare under this system will be very high and vary from each agency and therefore marginalize the poor sections of the society. The private healthcare system promotes discrimination among the residents of the economy. But this system provides you the freedom to choose the doctor, private room and access to professional doctors

What about the United States

There is a difference of opinion among the experts and politicians regarding which method of rationing of healthcare is suitable for a country like the United States. Some doubts the ability of the single healthcare system to reduce the administrative costs claimed by its proponents. They also have a fear that the tax burden may increase in a system of single-payer healthcare to meet the healthcare services. The experiences of Britain and Canada demonstrate that universal government health coverage is not the same as the universal access to quality healthcare. Most of the cases they fail to provide quality healthcare services compared to the private healthcare system. The experiences show that government-run healthcare fails to ensure their promises.

So personally I feel that a country like the United States has to adopt a hybrid form of both systems so that poor sections can be given healthcare coverage and rich communities can get access to healthcare according to their convenience. There must be some provision to control the activities of the private agencies who provide private healthcare services. The US government has to make sure to provide the best quality and timely service if they move on to the single payer healthcare.