Here is my paper. I am disscussing the social injustices of health care. The assignment description is available at docs.google.com/View?docid=d4tx2d6_11fjqqhkg3
The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer a universal health care program and the lack of health care is a growing problem. The number of Americans without insurance is currently at an all time high ("Health Insurance Coverage 2000," U.S. Census Bureau, Sept. 28, 2001).
70% of Americans rely on their employer for health benefits, but with the recent state of the economy this number is rapidly declining. "Health costs are the single largest cost that employers face - far exceeding energy, labor, material, even litigation." But money saved from cut insurance benefits will not end up in CEOs pockets. American companies simply, "can not compete with foreign business whose government shoulder medical and hospital costs" (Freudenheim).
The answer is not nationalization. A study conducted by University College in London and Columbia University in New York followed 1,000 individuals having similar surgeries. The study concluded that patients in the United Kingdom were four times more likely to die after the same surgery than their American counterparts. Researchers attributed these results to postoperative care and delayed surgeries in the United Kingdom. (boortz)
A state run medical program is not the diagnosis for the United States. Canada's solution to health care is very similar to the United Kingdom. The government pays a majority of costs. But patients pay in other ways. Image the long lines at the post office or Department of Motor Vehicles. Government run programs are synonymous with waiting. Nationalized health care is no exception, it is not uncommon in both the United Kingdom and Canada for patients to experience outlandish and unacceptable wait times. Following a referral from a general practitioner, "it took an average of 20 weeks to see a specialist" in Canada (Lopes).
Some patients in the United Kingdom flee the country in desperation for medical care. A recent article in the Daily Mail, a popular United Kingdom periodical, describes a growing number of health tourists. These individuals are in need of surgery or medical treatment and are fed up or unable to deal with the "frustration of often waiting months for operations and receiving sub par care." The Daily Mail estimates that "by the end of the decade 200,000 health tourists will fly to Malaysia, South Africa, and even America for major surgery." If so many patients in countries with national health care are leaving for treatment elsewhere, it is obviously not the answer. Another problem with national health care is the power it would give government, if every citizen was granted health care, the government would have more reason to regulate personal freedoms. Congress could easily pass a ban on trans fats, smoking, or caffeine with the justification of lowering costs.
America's healthcare solution will not come in the form of a government program. Instead the solution will come from prevention. Thomas Edison believed, "The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will instruct his patient in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease" ("Wizard Edison" in The Newark Advocate (2 January 1903), p. 1). The future doctors need to be teachers more then surgeons. Instead of fixing what is broken, their focus will be to educate their students about proper eating, exercise, and stress reduction.
A recent study attributed the leading causes of death in the United States to only three factors: tobacco, diet, activity patterns, and alcohol. ("Health Insurance Coverage 2000," U.S. Census Bureau, Sept. 28, 2001). All of these elements are preventable. Despite precautionary resources being procurable, many high-value practices are unfortunately underutilized. Less than 50% of the population receives smoking-cessation services, counseling about aspirin use, cancer screenings, and vaccines for infections diseases. Increasing use of these four services would save millions of dollars but importantly, more than 100,000 lives annually (Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., M.P.H.).
Sadly, Americans do a better job getting oil changes and other preventive maintenance on their cars than on themselves. The country must have an intervention and come to realize the power of precautionary care. Real health care reform will come only from demand reduction, as individuals learn to take charge of their health.
Not bad. A few questions you might want to consider:
"the lack of health care is a growing problem." For whom? The wealthy? The middle class? The poor? Also, what do you mean by lack of health care? Do you mean that the facilities do not exist to meet the demand? Or that the cost of using the facilities is prohibitive for some of the people who need to do so? Does the existence of that need imply a right? If so, where does the right come from? If not, in what sense can the lack of affordability be construed as problem?
You mention the wait times under nationalized systems. Is it better to have a long wait than to be unable to afford health care at all? Also, could a mixture of public and private health care, as is common in much of Europe, mitigate this problem?
You might also want to talk about what is driving up the cost of health care, namely the development of more and more new drugs and treatments, combined with an aging population full of people who, even a few decades ago, would be preparing to die of old age instead of expecting to carry on for another 20 years.
With the idea of preventative medicine, what makes you think people will accept it. Why would someone want to avoid fatty foods and alcohol to eek out five extra years of senility and physical degeneration? In other words, is there more to life than just the mere avoidance of the grave?
I realize you can't possibly deal with all of this given the limited length you have to work in, but considering these questions might help you to tighten up some areas of your essay.
