The American healthcare system is one of the most progressive in the world. However, some problems may occur, and it is important to pay attention to these drawbacks. For example, the current issues are related to affordability and access to all citizens. Not all patients in the US can receive high-quality treatment for a low price because of increased taxes. The solution to this problem is related to implementing a universal healthcare system, which can provide comprehensive coverage and cost control for all Americans of different social classes.
The issue of poor access to the medical industry significantly influences the well-being of the nation in general. To address this problem, an application of a universal healthcare system might be useful. Different layers of the federal structure can work together to create a new healthcare policy in the United States. For instance, in the legislative branch, the Senate and the House of Representatives control healthcare bills (Bauchner et al., 2021). They can participate in the debates related to the decrease in costs.
The solution can also be favorable to the workers in the executive branch. In this case, the country’s President is in charge of the mentioned sphere of governance (Garnett, 2019). The head of the Government has direct access to the Department of Health and Human Services to request the development of a new marketplace system. Patients can find available options accepted by the insurance companies. Finally, in the judicial branch, employees of the Supreme Court are working on the Affordable Care Act, where people stay aware of all their legal rights (Bauchner et al., 2021). Further development of this act is correlated with the desired solution to the problem to keep parties interested in the plan.
Solutions can be diverse, and it is important to remember that they usually compete with each other. Market-based reforms boost competition between healthcare providers and ensure a decrease in costs when more organization step into the market. According to the recent study posted by Kullberg et al. (2018), people living in distant areas will not be struggling to get high-quality medical assistance if more local medical organization start developing. Federal Government will stay responsible for the solution implementation to make the life of commuters more comfortable. The legislative branch can establish federal standards and regulate the tax costs to allow more individuals to purchase private insurance. The executive branch can expand health savings accounts to remove existing barriers to entry for new healthcare providers. Finally, the judicial branch can make legal challenges for all medical organizations to ensure their credibility in the market. While State Government regulates the insurance industry and develops strategies to enhance competition, the Local Government pays more attention to the local clinics which develop public health programs.
The second competing solution can be connected to developing a single-payer system. The Government can pay for the one healthcare system used by all public and private clinics (Markowitz and McLeod-Sordjan, 2021). However, government branches still have unique responsibilities and powers, which should be presented in implementing the new system. For example, the legislative branch can allocate funds correctly and ensure that the development does not require more investment. After implementing the innovation, the executive branch can create necessary administrative structures to manage effective healthcare delivery. The judicial branch is about the legality of the single-payer system, and governmental authorities should give relevant permissions. State Government, in this case, may coordinate with the Federal branches to provide additional resources like questionnaire results and feedback for further improvements. Local Government will play a minimal role in the process of single-payer system integration, and they should continue monitoring the performance of regional medical centers.
This solution is preferable as it can allow controlling costs on different medical services, drugs, and other operational services. By leveraging the bargaining power of buyers, healthcare may become available to everyone regardless of social status and income level. Additionally, more local medical centers will appear with the introduction of cost regulation on licenses, and people in rural areas can stay sure about the quality of medical assistance. The universal healthcare system often raises concerns about taxes. There might be a significant increase in the funds to support the implemented programs. Moreover, government control can cause bureaucracy and long waiting times for patients and their families.
The critics are wrong because with the increase in insurance purchases for private organizations, the cost flow will stay long-term and medical centers may be able to allocate resources effectively. Healthcare organizations will fully manage paperwork and administrative procedures, and the role of the Government will be eliminated, allowing new medical decisions to be introduced. Furthermore, patients will have a chance to switch to another medical center to get help faster.
References
Bauchner, H., Frontanarosa, P. B., & Maddox, K. J. (2021). Health care is a right, not a privilege: A new series on US health care and health policy. JAMA, 325(3), 227-228. Web.
Kullberg, L., Blomqvist, P., & Winblad, U. (2018). Market-oriented reforms in rural health care in Sweden: How can equity in access be preserved? International Journal for Equity in Health, 17(123). Web.
Markowitz, W., & McLeod-Sordjan, R. (2021). Values-based foundation for a U.S. single payer health system model. Frontiers in Sociology, 6. Web.