Introduction
The debate on whether the American Health Care system is fit for her people is raging. Several people have issued conflicting ideas on whether it should be scrapped and a new one adopted or whether it should be left the way, it is because it is the envy of the world. This essay shall summarize two examples of articles with opposite views.
Bureau of Labor Education’s viewpoint
The Bureau of Labour Education (BLE) at the University of Maine exposes the problems with the US healthcare system. Despite the massive spending in the sector, first, it scores low in general performance and equality of financial contributions. Second, it is the most expensive in the world, probably because of high costs in medical technology, drugs given to patients for daily usage, and the very high salaries taken home by the medical administrators. In addition, there is poor spending on medication and many citizens cannot access cheaper health care (1-8). These problems make US healthcare very expensive and inefficient.
The other challenge of the health care system is cost. It is high and linked to the commercialization of the system where few people are insured to pay for it when their health worsens. Yet, the sufferer is the taxpayer because they shoulder this burden. Furthermore, the control of health care decisions and the desertion of caregivers further limit access to care. Moreover, statistics of high infant mortality given here further degrades the system further. Therefore, the high cost locks out many American citizens and currently about 42.6 million are without health cover.
Hence, a solution should be found to tackle the problems in the healthcare system. There should be an evaluation of the system itself regarding costs. In addition, the cost ought to be brought down so that every American citizen can afford and access health services. The serve should meet the standards set by the World Health Organization (BLE 2). The American health care system is qualitative and reactive to the needs of the sick (privacy and dignity) but it is hardly accessed by all due to the many players in it, this has caused dissatisfaction with the system with just about 40% of people liking it (BLE 6). When the solution is found many will be satisfied with the healthcare system, as it will serve their medical needs.
On the other hand, to reduce people’s frustration, there is a need for a single player to reduce the cost of administration and increase accessibility because it is economically feasible. Private insurers of medical care will help to finance advanced medical services to patients.
Joseph Califano’s viewpoint
Joseph Califano supports cost reduction in the second article (Para. 12) but warns it may cause low quality if funds gained by private firms are cut in the wake of reducing costs. There would be no research and the experts will reduce commitment if the pay is cut. The quest for fair medication should be serviced by individual contributions and those who fail to attend to government practices like vaccination should be penalized if they fall sick from the same illnesses because they will have wasted governments funds used in availing the vaccines and other medication.
Nevertheless, the quality of US health care is high and it attracts leaders from across the globe. There is no need to change the health care system because it keeps this quality brought by many players that contribute immensely to this system. There are well-trained and committed physicians, better facilities, control to better drugs is done by the Federal Drugs Administration and intensive research is done to certify medical products. This has come a long way from the time Abraham Flexner exposed the poor medical training and insufficient facilities with poor drug quality common in the 19th century (para. 6).
On the contrary, Introducing a single player may not be sufficient because there can be increased bureaucracy that will affect quality. Many will spend more on processing documents, which may take time to approve. This may tire medical practitioners. Those doctors who value profits more than patient satisfaction should be sacked to deter such behavior.
Moreover, cutting on the federal budget may hinder better health care. The desire to achieve efficiency may limit excellent patient examination already in place. The achievement in the health ministry can only be brought by attracting pharmaceuticals to make a profit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be difficult to judge which suggestion is right. Although every individual has a right to affordable medical care, the proposal to lower the cost may drive away from major private players. All these views must be viewed with equal attention before a decision is made.
Works Cited
Bureau of Labour Education. “The US Health Care System: Best in the world, or just the most expensive?” Issues Brief, University of Maine. 2001. Web.
Califano, Joseph A. “Healthy Horizons.” The American Legion Magazine. 1997. Web.