Introduction
In the United States, employers are the leading providers of healthcare through health insurance schemes. Nonetheless, there is a controversy on whether to continue with this system or adopt a national healthcare plan like other developed countries. The objective of this essay is to analyze the existing employer-based healthcare programs in America, the possible benefits and challenges of adopting a centralized healthcare system, and the difficulties encountered in public policymaking surrounding healthcare.
Current System: Employer-Offered Healthcare Programs
For years, employer-sponsored healthcare programs have been the primary way of providing healthcare coverage to employees in the United States. In most cases, such schemes involve employers entering into agreements with insurers to get their employees covered. Employers and employees often share the cost of these programs, with employers contributing a significant amount of premium. Therefore, one benefit of employer-provided healthcare programs is the opportunity to offer various types of coverage options for employers (Lennon, 2021). Employers can bargain with insurers to provide complete policies that fit well with the varied needs of their workforce. This flexibility ensures that the workers can select coverage that is applicable to each situation of their preference. Moreover, there can be cases when employees who shift jobs with high frequency may experience intervals without insurance coverage as their health benefits depend on the type of work they do.
Transitioning to a National Healthcare Plan
National healthcare plans, which are characterized by universal coverage for all citizens, have been successfully established in some developed countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany. This system, primarily funded through taxation, is aimed at providing comprehensive healthcare services to all citizens of a country. It offers a wide variety of healthcare services enjoyed by the public without the burden of paying for individual medical insurance policies, which promotes a fairer and more inclusive health system. However, the success of this system relies on putting the welfare of citizens first, focusing on preventive care, and making a healthier society by providing every individual with accessible, economical health services.
Transitioning to a national healthcare plan holds immense benefits for the United States despite its inherent challenges. First, it will guarantee health services for all Americans irrespective of their work status. This will help solve the coverage challenges faced by people who are jobless or tend to change jobs frequently. In addition, a country-wide health care program might eventually bring down overall medical expenses through simplifying administrative formalities and bargaining with health service providers for reduced prices. On the other hand, there are also a number of problems that come with transitioning to a national healthcare plan in America. One of the immediate concerns is the possibility of overstretching governmental resources. Indeed, providing full-fledged medical care to all citizens would necessitate huge spending, which might result in higher taxation or government deficits. In addition, transitioning from the existing employer-sponsored system to a nationwide healthcare strategy will require deliberate planning and synchronization to ensure an effective transition with minimal interruption in the country’s healthcare infrastructure.
Problems with Public Policymaking in Healthcare
Public policymaking in healthcare is an intricate and demanding process. Its complexity arises since it involves various stakeholders, including government officials, medical practitioners, insurance firms, employers, and the common people, before making the decisions. Therefore, it is always challenging to strike a balance between these interest groups while at the same time ensuring equitable and efficient healthcare delivery. In most cases, the influence of special interest groups is one of the challenging tasks in public policy making. Montez (2020) notes that influential advocacy organizations representing pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry, among others that are into healthcare, have a significant say on healthcare policies. Such influences can bias policy choices and give precedence to commercial gain at the expense of public welfare. Moreover, the healthcare system itself is inherently complex and, therefore, presents another challenge. Policies concerning healthcare must take into account various factors such as the cost of care, quality, access to care, and equity. Hence, striking the right balance and creating effective policies necessitates a profound understanding of the intricacies of the healthcare system and the ability to navigate the political landscape.
Conclusion
The United States has had a complex debate on whether to remain with the existing employer-provided health care plans or transition to a national health care program. However, they should note that both choices have their inherent benefits and drawbacks. It should be noted that despite being full of options and flexibility, employer-provided programs are also grappling with the issues of affordability and coverage gaps. Alternatively, it is also possible to transition to a nationwide medical coverage program to cater to every citizen’s healthcare needs, even though it would stretch the government’s resources. Finally, it is essential to balance the interests of all stakeholders involved in healthcare to ensure that public policymaking in healthcare caters to all their demands and is equally equitable and efficient.
References
Lennon, C. (2021). Did the affordable care act increase the availability of employer‐sponsored health insurance? Southern Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12543
Montez, J. K. (2020). US state polarization, policymaking power, and population health. The Milbank Quarterly, 98(4), 1033. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12482
write