Question

Extending health care services to all persons is a popular topic of discussion, but the overall cost of paying the bill for the services is what seems to stop it from becoming a reality. Take some time to research the facts regarding what it would cost to extend basic medical services to all persons in the United States, and some of the proposed ideas of how it would/could be paid for. What are the likely effects for all stakeholders involved? Do you believe it is fair to expect “the haves” to pay additional personal and/or corporate taxes to provide medical services for the “have nots”? Should workers have to give up their current employer-sponsored private-pay insurance to move to one single-payer system, or should there be a choice, and why?

Answer 1

Extending healthcare services to all persons is the vision of every country in its route to become a fully developed country . But the main thing or cause which hinders inbetween is the funds required to provide services .

Health care costs rising far faster than inflation have been a major driver for health care reform in the United States. As of 2016, the US spent $3.3 trillion (17.9% of GDP), or $10,438 per person; major categories included 32% on hospital care, 20% on physician and clinical services, and 10% on prescription drugs. US does does not have a uniform health care system . Rather having a nationa Medicaid payer system it should give more stress on single - payer system as a hybrid system .

Yes, i believe that it would be fair enough if the so called haves pay additional personal or corporate taxes of medical services that they get to provide medical services for those who don't have. No , workers don't have to give up their current employer-sponsored private-pay insurance to move to one single-payer system, either they should have a choice inbetween them because in this way they will get proper care services , no twinning of insurance coverage and also those who don't have will get benefit out of it.