Homeworks academic service


An argument in favor of having a national health care insurance for america

The Economic Case for Single Payer Health Care in the US

Economists, too, are divided on what model of health care will ultimately be best for the American economy. But most agree that the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. The need for hospitals to sift through mountains of insurer-related paperwork keeps administrative costs extremely high, and these costs are passed on to consumers. This inefficiency is compounded by a problem of asymmetric information built into the structure of the American health care system.

The average consumer of health care has limited information on the quality of a given insurance plan, and shopping between plans—and accurately assessing the difference in quality between each—is difficult.

Latest Tweets

The result of these problems, say some economists, is a fundamental failure in the market for health care, which is distributed unevenly and uneconomically among consumers. Anders Fremstad, Professor of Economics at the University of Colorado, observes that consumers consistently overpay for health care because of inefficiency, and that many are discouraged from seeking it at all due to the complexity of the system.

He or she must expend time and energy puzzling through how much they owe for each visit, as opposed to paying a straightforward proportion of their income annually to the government, as is the case in a single-payer system.

Baker also cites the role of protectionism in the pharmaceutical and health care industries, which keeps costs in the U. In his view, the government practice of granting monopolies to pharmaceutical companies has resulted in unreasonable price gouging of lifesaving medicine.

  1. But most agree that the status quo cannot continue indefinitely.
  2. While this in and of itself is not a problem, the United States also spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other advanced country in the world and has worse health outcomes — with lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and higher obesity rates than comparable countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan. Employers would not be able to limit access to contraception or any other procedures on the basis of religious freedom arguments.
  3. It is predictable, welcome, and life-enhancing.
  4. Posted on August 3, 2017 2 Comments Check out your state HERE Mike Magee The optimistic top line headlines today dominated health news even while Congress struggles on the very basics of health delivery. While this in and of itself is not a problem, the United States also spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other advanced country in the world and has worse health outcomes — with lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and higher obesity rates than comparable countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan.

Like Baker, Julie NelsonProfessor of Economics at University of Massachusetts Boston, notes the logistical hurdles the private insurance-based system engenders.

Simply keeping track of whether a person is covered, what they are covered for, where they can receive care, and who gets billed for what consumes endless hours of time on the part of those in need of care, and bloats the offices of providers, insurers, employers, and program agencies.

  • He explains that going to the doctor is not like going to the auto repair shop;
  • Having local control of both buckets may be essential in transitioning workers in the near future;
  • It is also surprising because Bernie Sanders, running on a platform that included universal coverage or what he called Medicare for all , generated massive grassroots support and energized the millennial population that makes up an increasing percentage of the electorate.

Julie Nelson Nelson posits that a move away from an employer- or private insurer-based system will have a net positive effect on efficiency because workers will no longer need to consider the availability of insurance when deciding whether to take or leave a job. As a result, they will be more likely to take up employment that they enjoy and that fits their skill set, without being restricted in terms of hours or location.

As a self-described feminist economist, Nelson also notes a further single-payer benefit: Employers would not be able to limit access to contraception or any other procedures on the basis of religious freedom arguments.

What the numbers say Other economists emphasize that empirical evidence appears to favor single-payer. Yet, as he stresses, all of these countries perform better than the U. We found that the proposed Healthy California measure will generate [substantial] financial benefits for both families and businesses at all levels of the California economy.

He explains that going to the doctor is not like going to the auto repair shop: Most costs go toward routine or preventative care, like annual checkups. It is predictable, welcome, and life-enhancing. While these strategies are profitable for insurers, they raise costs for consumers, putting those who can least afford to pay at risk.

Like Baker, Friedman is also concerned with the soaring price of pharmaceuticals and hospital services in the U. A system with multiple insurers leaves none with the market power to stand up to elite providers, including drug companies and hospitals.

  • It is also surprising because Bernie Sanders, running on a platform that included universal coverage or what he called Medicare for all , generated massive grassroots support and energized the millennial population that makes up an increasing percentage of the electorate;
  • Anders Fremstad, Professor of Economics at the University of Colorado, observes that consumers consistently overpay for health care because of inefficiency, and that many are discouraged from seeking it at all due to the complexity of the system;
  • A healthy population is more productive, more likely to be educated, more mobile and willing to take risk, more likely to get married and have children, less likely to be involved in crime, violence, or injury.

Gerald Friedman Over time, Friedman argues, a single-payer system will not only cut costs, but also significantly improve the quality of health care and lead to more innovation and deeper research.

For example, there are currently no data on outcomes and health care utilization across the country other than those collected by the VA and Medicare. In the long run, he says, such data—and the system that produces it—could revolutionize the way health care is practiced in the US.

  • While this in and of itself is not a problem, the United States also spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other advanced country in the world and has worse health outcomes — with lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and higher obesity rates than comparable countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan;
  • While this in and of itself is not a problem, the United States also spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other advanced country in the world and has worse health outcomes — with lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and higher obesity rates than comparable countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan;
  • This inefficiency is compounded by a problem of asymmetric information built into the structure of the American health care system;
  • The need for hospitals to sift through mountains of insurer-related paperwork keeps administrative costs extremely high, and these costs are passed on to consumers;
  • This is not dissiliar to the way we expanded Medicaid, providing baseline standards and financial subsidies from the federal government but giving each governor the authority to balance and integrate local health delivery with a range of other social services.