Similarities and Differences between the Ontario Healthcare System and the “Medicare for All” Bill
Currently, Bernie Sanders, an Independent Vermont Senator, is once again trying to promote his “Medicare for All” bill which focuses on single-payer health care. He states that it is America’s moral obligation to apply this act, as it will provide healthcare for all. This bill presupposes that the financing of healthcare is provided purely by the government. Thus, all the residents can receive basic coverage irrespective of their health status, occupation, and income (Kurtzleben 2017).
Admittedly, the USA is one of those few developed countries that do not have this system in effect. Most European countries, as well as Canada, have already implemented such a system but with certain differences. Thus, for example, in Ontario, healthcare is provided by doctors and private organizations. Certainly, people can purchase additional healthcare insurance, but basic care, beginning with drug prescription and ending with mental healthcare, is covered through taxes imposed by the government on every citizen of the province (Boisvert 2017).
Thus, the healthcare system in Ontario is similar to that proposed by Bernie Sanders in a way that it ensures that all the residents of the province receive healthcare coverage from only one governmental insurance plan for doctor services and core hospital services (Boisvert 2017). Besides, people have the option to buy additional care insurance. The primary difference between this system and Sanders’s Medicare is that it covers a greater percentage of the costs.
Regarding quality, access, and cost, certain issues are the main reason why this system has not been implemented in the USA yet. In terms of access, the situation is mostly positive, as many more people will be able to afford basic healthcare. Concerning the quality, the situation may vary, but overall, it can remain the same. As for the cost, it will be a real challenge, as the government will have to pay for those who cannot afford basic healthcare (Kurtzleben 2017).
Should the Sitting Senator Throw Supporting “Medicare for All”?
In my opinion, the senator should continue promoting this bill though it is unlikely to be passed shortly. The reason for this is that to implement this system, the costs for the government will be overwhelming. In Sanders’s opinion, they will make up $16 trillion for 10 years, whereas according to the Urban Institute, they will be twice as much higher, namely, $32 trillion (Kurtzleben 2017).
Another advantage of the proposed system is that it will eliminate premiums, copays, and deductibles and extend the overall coverage. According to this system, the out-of-pocket spending will vary from one person to another depending on their income and the way of financing the program (Adamczyk 2017). However, I think that some wealthy people and private organizations will be reluctant to pay much more money than they pay now to provide healthcare for everyone.
Additionally, Sanders’s bill implies coverage for various other things that are beyond what the current healthcare system provides, for example, it will include vision and dental care coverage (Adamczyk 2017). In my opinion, on the one hand, it is an advantage, as people will be able to receive comprehensive healthcare, on the other hand, this will substantially increase governmental costs for optional care. Nevertheless, I think that Sanders’s bill has more advantages than disadvantages, and the USA should adopt healthcare used by most of the developed countries, as it provides medical care for everyone.
Bibliography
Adamczyk, Alicia. 2017. “What Is Single-Payer Healthcare and Why Is It so Popular?” Time. Web.
Boisvert, Nick. 2017. “Ontario Hospitals Sounding Alarm over Potential Flu Season ‘Capacity Crisis’.” CBC News. Web.
Kurtzleben, Danielle. 2017. “Here’s what’s in Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ Bill.” NPR: National Public Radio. Web.