This denies citizens their right to basic needs, happiness, and life as guaranteed in the U. We love to communicate with our readers, so if you have a question related to academic writing, want to report a problem or bug or just have a suggestion to our editorial team, do not hesitate to leave an email at [email protected]
This denies citizens their right to basic needs, happiness, and life as guaranteed in the U. We love to communicate with our readers, so if you have a question related to academic writing, want to report a problem or bug or just have a suggestion to our editorial team, do not hesitate to leave an email at [email protected]Tags: Research Proposal Time ScheduleReally Good Words To Use In EssaysEssay Urging RatificationCritical Thinking TermsHow To Write A Winning Scholarship EssayBook Report Sa Filipino ElementaryaMy New Year Party Essay
The social, economic, and political development of any country depends on the ability of its citizens to contribute toward common goals. All American citizens have the right to access quality health care.
For this to be attained, the population needs to be in good health to engage in productive activities. citizens who cannot afford health care from the private sector because of the high prices have their right to happiness denied. This denies them the right to life as guaranteed in the U. Quality service cannot be guaranteed under the private sector.
S.) per capita on health–or one-seventh what the U. According to the World Bank, in 2014 Singapore spent $2,752 per person on health care. Given this, it’s worth asking a few questions about what Singapore’s model really has to teach the US.
The state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore’s total health costs. In fact, the latest figures show that Singapore’s government spends only $381 (all dollars in this article are U. Singapore’s system requires individuals to take responsibility for their own health, and for much of their own spending on medical care.
Klein also overlooks the fact that the argument he uses against conservative supporters of the Singapore system applies equally well against progressive supporters of the European approach.
He argues that since health care in America is so much more expensive than in Singapore, we probably pay almost as much out of pocket as they do, despite paying a lower percentage. Thus our government spends about 8% of GDP on health care (out of a total of roughly 18% of GDP), whereas European governments spend about 8% of GDP on health care out of a total of 9% to 10%.So we are already spending roughly as much as in Europe.If a single payer regime were actually feasible in America, then our government should already be able to provide universal coverage out of the already existing health care programs.The health sector should be nationalized to pull prices down and enhance affordability. Conclusion From the above presentation, it is evident that leaving health care in the hands of the private sector results in high financial exploitation of U. citizens by health care providers and insurance companies.This reduces access to health care by citizens, reducing their ability to contribute toward social, economic, and political development of the country. To eliminate the many inefficiencies that come with entrusting health care to the private sector, the country should nationalize health care to make the government the sole provider.* Singaporeans are far healthier than Americans with 3% who are obese compared to 35% of Americans, which adds a fourth major strain on health care costs.Klein makes a reference to this toward the end of the article but without the details that show how stark the differences are.Americans, by contrast, have their care paid for by insurers and employers and the government, and so they have little incentive to act like shoppers and push back on prices. (It’s worth noting that, on average, Singaporeans are richer than Americans, so the issue here is not that we have more money to blow on health care.) I think he’s overstating the case here (I find that even many of my small health expenses are heavily subsidized) but there is some truth to what he says here.And I think this points to the necessary first step in health care reform—getting costs down.I’m curious as to why you think tax policy is the first step toward getting a better health care system. First, if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more, subsidize it (got milk? By making employer-provided health insurance tax deductible (Your employer gets a tax break on its portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes), government has encouraged employers to use employee-pre-tax money to purchase insurance in the employee’s favor. By the way, he said “the first step toward getting there is cutting costs” and tax policy is a major driver.There are many ways to improve the system, and a good number of them would have widespread political support among the American population and would make tangible positive impacts on the system. This advantage is not available to that part of the population not covered by employer plans. Getting government out of the subsidy business is necessary to begin moderating government-driven health-care inflation.