Pros and Cons of Us Healthcare System

This paper will compare the healthcare service and healthcare status between Canada and the United States. Canada and the United States have a totally different healthcare system. Many people argued that the United States healthcare system needs some upgrading, while, some people admire Canada’s healthcare system due to the fact that Canada’s healthcare does more for less. Research has shown that Canada spends less of its’ GDP on it’s healthcare yet performs better than the United States.

In the United States, access to health care is largely determined by who has financing to receive insurance (Shi & Singh, 2013, p. 197) Financing for health care comes from many different entities. For most Americans who have health insurance through their employment, the employers pay a part of the insurance premium and employees pay the rest (Shi & Singh, 2013, p.

The Canadian healthcare system was first established in the late 1940’s and is made up of socialized health insurance plans that provide coverage to every Canadian citizen. Publicly funded and managed, rules are set forth by the federal government. In the 1960’s, Canada in essence, has had universal healthcare coverage for all services provided by physicians and hospitals. Change your source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada 2014) Whereas, the healthcare system in America originated in the 1800’s, but truly wasn’t established until the late 1920’s. Healthcare in America was initially for teachers for a low cost in Dallas Texas by Justin Kimball. Change you source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) Healthcare in the United States is mostly privately funded with only a few publicly funded entities such as Medicare and Medicaid. The Canadian and U.S. healthcare system s have been under a lot of scrutiny over the years, being the topic of every political conversation. In this essay, I will write about the main differences between the U.S and Canadian Health-care system, and help shed some light on how each system works. The main points I will be discussing are the wait times to see a primary care physician, the funding of each countries health care system, accessibility to medical care and the quality of care.

Most Canadians are very proud of their health care because it provides citizens universal coverage on the basis of need. However, in the recent decade, Canadians have observed obvious deterioration in the quality of the system in regards to waiting times, availability of the best technology, and adequate numbers of doctors and nurses. The apparent decline within the system has made many Canadians more open to a variety of options than they were a decade ago, provided that the core elements of the system are preserved and that these changes lead to tangible improvements in quality without damaging accessibility. In the article Canadians’ Thoughts on Their Health Care System: Preserving the Canadian Model through Innovation by Matthew Mendelsohn, he stated that 1/3 of Canadians support the two-tiered healthcare system, which offers its citizens an option of public or private health care. Canada will benefit from a two-tier health care system because it will shorten waiting times, other countries with two-tier healthcare have proven to be successful, will encourage doctors to return and stay in Canada, introduce competition and give citizens freedom to choose.

Suitable health care would not be possible for the elderly population in America without the assistance of Medicare Part A. Medicare did not come about easily. Currently Medicare spending is more than what is being collected, questioning future solvency. There are many challenges with sustaining Medicare into the future. Medicare’s past struggles, present outcomes, and future challenges confirm that a national health plan is ever evolving to meet the needs of the current population and spending inflation.

America has a very disorganized and fragmented healthcare system while Canada has a very structured and established system. Since there is no healthcare system in the world that is considered perfect all countries implement polices that they believe will be the most beneficial for their residents, The United States’ and Canada’s systems are both constantly being reformed to fit the current needs their residents however there are strengths and weaknesses for both of the systems.

The discussion on whether the United States should implement the universal care has become a big controversial issue. Especially in the recent election it was the center of topic, candidates debated over the Obama care and whether they should change it or keep it. Few days ago, the new president introduce a new healthcare which still not fully implemented yet since they must wait for the senate vote but as for now it is on its way to becoming the new heath system in the united states. But is this what the United States need or should they rather try implementing a more efficient system.

Healthcare in the United States is extremely different from the rest of the world. Over the years government and political analysts have compared and contrasted the health care systems of the United States to that of Canada’s. Despite being located on the same continent both countries have different ways of delivering health care to its citizens. Canada has a single-payer system that is publicly funded, while the United States has a multi-payer system that relies heavily on privately owned healthcare. This could be due to the differences in how many patients are cared for compared to those in America or it could be just a matter of

When discussing health care systems, Canada’s is often used as a possible model for the US. The two countries systems are very different being that Canada has a single payer, mostly publicly funded system, while the US has a multi-payer, heavily private system. So much of the appeal of the Canadian system is that is does more for less. They provide universal access to health care for its citizens, while almost one in five non-elderly Americans are uninsured. Many of these findings come from the results of the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health from 2002-2003. This survey revealed that the health status is for the most part similar in the two countries, but income-related health disparities exist. For example, Americans in the poorest income bracket are more likely to have poor health compared to their “counterparts” in Canada. In "Health Status, Health Care, and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," (NBER Working Paper 13429) June O 'Neill and Dave M. O 'Neill take a closer look at the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. They examine whether the Canadian system delivers better health outcomes and distributes health resources more justifiably than the U.S. system. After conducting their own research, they have different findings then the survey. They feel that in the US we have too many outside factors contributing to our health to really be able to compare the two systems. Let’s take a deeper look into the different systems.

In this paper, there will be a comparative analysis to the United States (U.S.) healthcare system and Canadians healthcare system highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of both.

The article deals with the trichotomy that presents itself in Canada, Insured America, and Uninsured America. The article is an analysis of the differences between all three with more focus on how uninsured America is separate from the other two. The focus is on the aged old question of “Whose residents have better access to health care, the United States’ or Canada’s?”(699). Morgan and Kennedy state that the Joint Canada U.S. Survey of Health data showed that despite major differences in their health systems, most Canadians and Americans get the care they need. The problem is that a certain group, uninsured America, are much more likely to report serious access barriers. About “one-third of currently or recently uninsured Americans”, aged

Neighboring countries, United States and Canada have close ties to one another, share the same language and have many of the same fundamental and religious beliefs. It is an interesting debt as to which provides a superior healthcare system. In order to better understand the strengths and weakness of the two systems, this paper will review four important structural and functional elements of each system.

“If Medicare and health care cost continue to grow at insane rates year over year, we are basically fiscally screwed. If its cost curve comes down considerably, we are fine. Literally those are the stakes. Screwed, fine, depending on how those curves go. And here is what’s happened. The blue line in this chart is the projection for Medicare as a percentage of the economy, the GDP and it shows Medicare cost flattening out at about 6% of GDP all the way through 2080 according to the latest trustee’s report on the financial health of Medicare. Look at the red line. That was the projection back in 2005 which showed Medicare climbing and climbing and climbing through 2070 at a rate more than twice as bad. In other words Medicare is now projected to cost half as much, half as much over the coming decades. This is based on a mountain of information projection some of which could of course change like the actual cost of future medical procedures. But you get the picture. The primary new factor between then and now is Obamacare and the effect it may be having on slowing runaway medical cost. So the sky is not falling in other words. But don’t expect to hear that anywhere

According to National Academy of Social Insurance, Medicare’s two part trust funds (Hospital Insurance and Medicare Part A) is adequately financed. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund Is expected to receive $215.6 billion in 2010, but their overhead is $247.9 billion in benefits and expenses. Therefore, there will a deficit of $32.3 billion for the year. Based upon current funding, hospital insurance is sufficient to support costs until 2024. Also, Medicare’s overall spending is considered to grow rapidly within several years, including higher costs, improved technology systems and an overall aged population. Most importantly, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) totaled 3.6%, in 2010. In 2030, the projection is to rise 5.1 %("Financing Medicare

Sweden was slightly higher as well at 9.6%. However, both countries were less than the United States at 16.9%, Netherlands at 11.8% and France at 11.6%. (“OECD Health Statistics,” 2014)