A debate has been raging for years in America: should the United States adopt a universal healthcare system, modeled after other western countries such as Canada, or should we keep our healthcare system as it stands today? According to the US Census Bureau, nearly 16% of Americans, or roughly 40 million people, do not have health insurance coverage. Would universal healthcare help Americans get the care they need, or would a universal system reduce the quality of care patients receive?
Critics of the United States healthcare system not only point to the number of people without insurance who subsequently cannot get adequate medical care, but also point to the demands that insurance companies place on both physicians and patients in regard to the type of care that is provided. In America the insurance companies, rather than the doctors, often have the final say as to what types of treatments patients can receive. This includes dictating types of diagnostic testing, pharmaceuticals, and surgical procedures a patient can receive based on the type of insurance policy that particular patient holds. Many advocates of universal healthcare believe that a government-run healthcare program would take the “doctoring” out of the hands of insurance companies and put it back in the hands of physicians.
Proponents of universal healthcare in America point to the Canadian and French healthcare systems as models to which the United States could look for inspiration. In Canada, all health care is free. This includes all doctor visits, visits to specialists, diagnostic testing, medicines in hospitals, and surgical procedures. This care is paid for by the government, both on a national level and by funding from the individual provinces. However, critics argue that Canada’s healthcare system is far from perfect. The amount of taxes needed to fund such a system is high; in fact, 22% of taxes in Canada go toward the costs of socialized medicine. Others argue that socialized medicine in Canada has caused long waits for necessary procedures. According to a Canadian think tank, the Fraser Institute, a patient must wait an average of 4 months to see a specialist due to the fact that the supply of medical services in Canada is rationed. In addition, Canadian doctors are subject to salary caps under government-controlled healthcare and many have decided to practice in other countries where the profession is more lucrative.
The French healthcare system is also government funded. In January 2000, the French government implemented changes to their socialized health system so that every individual would have total health care coverage. According to Medical News Today, the French healthcare system receives funding for 75% of costs from tax contributions; the other 25% is made up by a combination of out-of-pocket costs to the patient and supplemental health insurance. Eighty-five per cent of the French have supplemental health insurance and those who cannot afford it receive it through additional government programs. French patients can see as many doctors as they like, do not need referrals to see specialists, and there are more doctors and more hospital beds per 1000 people in France than there are in America.
However, the French system is experiencing some of the same problems as the Canadian system. Physicians feel that they are not paid enough money leading to strikes by doctor groups. The amount of taxes needed to run such a system are higher, and critics say that will not work in the U.S. as Americans generally protest any tax hikes for the implementation of new government programs.
With the 2008 presidential elections looming, the pros and cons of healthcare reform will undoubtedly be a hot topic of conversation for many months to come.
Labels: debate, government, systems
