Sociology

Critics of United States health care system have frequently pointed out to other countries as providing good models for reforms (Tanner, 2008). They often point to the fact that the expenditure on health care for the majority of countries is far much less as compared to that of the United States. According to these critics, United States need to follow the example of these countries and embrace a national health care system run by the government. However, a close observation of the various healthcare systems around the world suggests that they are grappling with problems associated with increasing costs and lack of access to healthcare. Of course, there is no universal model for national healthcare there is dramatic variation in the level of central regulation, control and cost sharing that they do impose. The role of private insurance also varies among them. This paper attempts to investigate the how well the United States health care system works in comparison to that of the United Kingdom. The two countries present different models of healthcare systems.

There exist overall trends in the health care systems around the world that are worth outlining. Health insurance cannot be conceived to imply universal access to health care. Practically, many countries including the United States and United Kingdom promise universal coverage but end up rationing care or have very long waiting lists for treatment (Tanner, 2008). The rising costs of health care are not unique to the United States. As much as other countries do not spend as much money as the United States on health care, costs are increasing almost everywhere resulting in budget deficits, increases in tax and reductions in benefits. Countries with more government control are likely to be characterized by individuals facing rationing, long waiting lists, restrictions on the choice of physician and other numerous obstacles to health care. On the other hand, countries that possess a national healthcare that is more effective are successful to the extent that they integrate market mechanisms and avoid centralized government control. United Kingdom is an example of the former while the United States is an example of the latter.

No country with a national health care system is attempting to abandon universal coverage. However, there has been a growing tendency to introduce more market oriented characteristics as opposed to a centralized government control. The United States appear to be doing the opposite. The proposed legislations to the health care system tend to instill more centralized government command and control. According to Paul Krugman, the United Kingdoms health care system is better than that of the United States (Krugman, 2007). The National Healthcare Program physicians are also of the idea that U.S. is the only industrialized nation that lacks national health care (Physicians for a National Health Program, 2006).  Such sentiments are based on the premise that countries that have a national health care system often spend less on health care and are in most cases having better health outcomes.

There is no denying that U.S. health care expenditure is far much greater than that of any country.  Its estimated expenditure on health care is about 16 percent of the GDP. The overall cost of health care is rising faster than the Gross Domestic Product and is now totaling more than 1.8 trillion (Borger, 2006). Majority of Americans are also not insured and this can pose difficulties for the majority. Even though the United States health care system can offer quality care, this quality is in most cases uneven. Many critics have suggested that the only way that that the United States can solve these problems is to have a national health care system.

However, this does not mean that the United Kingdom is nay better through its centralization of health care. It cannot be disputed that the Unite Kingdoms National Health Service is faced with serious problems. Very few national health care proponents consider it as a model (Tanner, 2008). The National Health Service is an example of a highly centralized single payer system. Health care is directly paid for by the government with the system being financed through general tax revenues. Apart from small copayments, no direct charges are levied on the patients.  The majority of nurses and physicians are employed by the government.

The United Kingdoms health policy has mainly focused on controlling spending for several years, an endeavor that it has been successful in carrying out. The system only spends 7.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on health care (OECD, 2007). However, the system still faces a deficit of about one billion pounds (Klein, 2006). This figure, according to some estimates, will have to be increase three-fold by 2025 in order to maintain the present level of services (Martin, 2007). However, the current level of services is wanting. There are long waiting lists with 75 percent of Britons waiting to be admitted to National Health Service hospitals.  The government of Britain has attempted to counter this problem by introducing some market based reforms.

Both the United States and United Kingdoms health care systems have their strengths and weaknesses. What is apparent is that a single model for national health care system does not exist and the difference is so huge that the terms universal coverage and national healthcare are at times misleading. The systems that exist in the two countries are a consequence of their distinct national character, conditions, politics and history.