Health coverage is one of the most debated issues in American life, both because of the high overall cost of health care costs and because access to coverage varies significantly depending on employment and socioeconomic status. The recall and replace effort has several problems. First, there are the philosophical differences over the government's role in health care coverage for its citizens. Second, there are also concerns that U.S.
citizens will have access to health care. Healthy citizens are better for the economy; high health costs are bad for it. People with chronic illnesses should have access to care and services, but the system may be subject to fraud. Third, there is the question of budget predictability for states and the federal government.
Accessible and affordable health care could allow for earlier intervention to prevent or limit the risk associated with chronic noncommunicable diseases and improve overall public health in the United States. Some moderates remained concerned that many of their constituents would lose health coverage, while a group of hardline conservatives who opposed big government argued that the bill was still too much like Obamacare. Determining the degree to which a country's health care is “universal” is complex and not a “black and white” question. In analyzing the bill, the Congressional Budget Office projected that, while the proposal would save billions of federal dollars, it would also result in 24 million more Americans not having health insurance over the next decade.
On the other hand, universal health care can lead to a healthier population and, therefore, in the long term, help mitigate the economic costs of an unhealthy nation. Other countries have approached healthcare very differently, including single-payer systems, managed by the government, or a combination of public and private options. With the proposed Health Act, funding will be withdrawn from the Medicaid program, which will harm the population with special needs. The possibility of reduced Medicaid cuts, along with reduced requirements for insurers, could spell disaster for some families.
Therefore, universal health care does not necessarily exclude the role of private providers within the health system, but rather ensures that the equity and effectiveness of care at the population and individual levels are a reference and an expectation for the system as a whole. A national plan to make health care more affordable for patients would also make it less cost-effective for many doctors in private practice. The cost of a universal health system would depend on its structure, levels of benefits and extent of coverage. However, with so much at stake and well-funded lobbyists by competing interests ready to fight, it's not at all clear if the reform of our health system can take place soon.
While an in-depth analysis of each of these factors is beyond the scope of this comment, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to purely private, market-based and governmental universal approaches to health care, and in policies that fall somewhere in between. Christen Linke Young and Matthew Fielder provide an overview of the state of health coverage and explain how popular proposals would change current arrangements. For example, Germany uses a multi-payer health system in which subsidized health care is widely available to low-income citizens, but there are also private options that provide the same quality and level of care as the subsidized option; they are also available to people with higher incomes. .
