Question

What are some of the ways in which the British health care system differs from the American system? What are significant political issues concerning health care in Canada? (500 words) in your own words no plagiarizm

Answer 1

The United States and United Kingdom healthcare system are similarly reflected by the extremes, the former has the biggest system in the private sector, while the latter has one of the biggest schemes of the public sector. Though England is at the bottom of industrial nations , the United States spends more on health care than any other country. England has made substantial investments in the health care sector, raising gross spending in 2007 to 8.4% of GDP, compared to 16% in the United States.

Healthcare in the U.S. is offered nearly entirely by providers in the private sector. Hospitals are owned either by profitable corporations or by non-profit and charitable organisations. Via the mix of private health benefits, Medicare and Medicaid services, about 84 per cent of the country has access to health coverage. In order to pay for required medical services, the remaining 16 percent of the population (mostly working poor and their families) must rely on their own financial support or charitable services.

While all programmes provide consequences in world class wellbeing, the U.K. The universal care sector sees far less difference in its population's health conditions than the U.S. The UK is also ranked better than the U.S. in terms of financial justice. This finding is a clear consequence of the UK national tax-based scheme vs the U.S. system's private risk-based funding. Furthermore, the U.K. The scheme is very inexpensive relative to the systems of other developing nations and the incredibly high expense of the U.S. system.

The UK framework has one major drawback. For its responsiveness, it earned comparatively poor ratings. The U.S. health care system ranks number one in the same WHO survey on responsiveness. "While the financially unregulated U.S. structure is very open to the" needs "and" wants "of its people, the financially limited U.K. A far less sensitive system.

Tight regulation of finance and health services in the UK scheme has resulted in the limitation of intangible "wants," resulting in waiting lists for non-essential medical treatment and poor WHO response marks.

Without the Council's national voice and shared priorities set across the country, health care progress will fail, care gaps between provinces and regions will worsen, and inequities will expand. On the other hand, the Tories are adamant that the solution is not further capital. Although they understand their role in upholding the Canada Health Act, they maintain that it is the responsibility of provinces and territories to supply their jurisdictions with facilities. They have a point, but it's not quite as black and white as the problem.

Despite being one of the highest spenders on health care in the OECD, when it comes to the value we get for our dollars, Canada is in the centre of the pack. In contrast to other nations, when you look at the standard of treatment, Canada is currently faring very badly.