The importance of critical thinking in professional activity has been corroborated by many scholars and numerous cases that we can see in our real life. Critical thinking helps a specialist to analyze and compare, estimate and assess, detect problems and opportunities, and make decisions. The focus of this paper is the current condition of the national health care system; I will observe the sources devoted to the problems in it and thus define the gap between “is” and “ought” in the US health care; I will outline the ways to reduce and eliminate this gap so that the health care system will work effectively.
I believe that the core of the “ought” condition of the USA health care system is equal rights and equal access to the health care services. This equality is the foundation that carries the balance in our society: a human’s right to health is inviolable and should be protected by the government. From the perspective of legislation, this right is guaranteed to every citizen of the USA; however, it is important for the power to guarantee that the status quo corresponds to the condition provided by law.
The second component of the “ought” condition is perpetual improvement of public health care: the national health care system should be developed in order to better fit the needs of the citizens. Two conditions should be fulfilled: firstly, the system should be funded appropriately; secondly, this funding should work effectively, which means actually improve the system.
However, we may notice that in the current US health care system’s “is”, certain negative tendencies have taken shape. Today the US government pays directly or indirectly for more than a half of the nation’s health care; however, the private insurers take the responsibility of both the insurance and the care, for –profit hospitals, and other groups of actors who put in cost without adding value (Krugman and Wells, Para 1). The USA spent 5.2 percent of GDP on healthcare in 1960 and by 2004 that number got increased up to 16 percent (Krugman and Wells, Para 4). Currently, the USA spends more on health care than on food.
Health care in USA is currently following a restricted market system: this notion implies that the insurance industry has become a group of the profit seeking firms, but the consumers do not have opportunity to choose between the market options; due to this, many problems arise in the current health care system (Baron, Para 2). Though the consumers are dissatisfied with their insurance plans, they are neither in a position to change their plans nor they can register it (Baron, Para 2). Consequently, plans cannot be successful to give quick resolution of claims, as the customers have to be restricted to their current plans all the way through their employers and because of the difficulty of switching plans (Baron, Para 2). This situation has already taken roots, and I may assume that in the course of time, it will be only aggravated.
This situation has awakened two problems that need to be solved. The first problem is the lack of incompetence that exists today in the health care system. This incompetence becomes more costly, as the health care sector becomes a generously proportioned part of the economy (Krugman and Wells, Para 11). Thus, these boosted costs exhaust the economical power of the country and at the same time bring no use for the citizens. The second problem we may observe today is caused by the first one: due to ineffective spending, the system often has to make irrational choices, and rising costs aggravate those irrationalities. Particularly, the USA health care has divided the population into two groups: the “insiders” who have good insurance, get all modern facilities without caring how expensive they are, and the “outsiders” who actually have no access to good insurance (Krugman and Wells, Para 12). In fact, these two problems make the current health care system ineffective, as it does not provide the necessary opportunities for the population and does not meet their needs. Thus, I may conclude that the “is” condition in the US health care system does not correspond to that “ought”. Observing the “is” condition, we may see that a certain vicious circle emerges: however large the growth of spending on health care is, the new “injection” does not work effectively thus turning money into wastage. Breaking this circle is the government’s top priority task.
I believe that free market is the main step to bringing the “is” condition to the correspondence with that “ought”. Overcoming the above mentioned problems requires taking actions aimed at support of free market for health insurance. The health care system should provide the conditions for the citizens so that they could “vote with their feet” (Baron, Para 3). For bringing the system into the condition of a free market, it is necessary for the insurance companies not to give discounts to employers, rather make it easier for the employers to buy insurance than to make it easy for their employees. Health insurance should be considered as a tax deductible expense for every tax payer (Baron, Para 3). It should also be against the law for insurance companies if they differentiate on the basis of pre-existing condition and specially at that time when the person is switching plans (Baron, Para 3). Employers should be prohibited to compel employees to agree to their own plan. The prices should be decided on the basis of sex, age, weight, smoking, and other risky issues, which could be controlled (Baron, Para 3). Despite these actions may be not welcomed by many people due to the above mentioned divide and the conflict of interest they provoke, they will help to improve the health care system in the long run.
It would be quite interesting to compare the US healthcare system with that of another country. From this perspective, health care in Taiwan is reasonable to consider: its “is” condition of the system completely corresponds to that “ought” outlined above. At the end of the 20th century, the economic power of Taiwan grew rapidly and substantially. However, the country still had a poor health care system where not everyone had the coverage of any healthcare or insurance. Thus, Taiwan faced the assignment to create an effective, developed national health care system (Reid, Para 1). The power wanted to create a healthcare system that treats everybody equally and gives everyone similar access to health care, free choice of doctors, without any waiting time; a system that supports a lot of competition among medical providers (Reid, Para 8). For financing the scheme, Taiwan selected a national insurance system that was a single, government-run fund which compels everyone to join the system and pay for it (Reid, Para 9). It is similar to the U.S. Medicare system, but it has more benefits (Reid, Para 9 & 10).
Taiwan is extraordinarily efficient by having one government plan that is same for all. For going to the doctor, one has to have a smart card that shows a patient’s history and medications. The bill is sent directly to the government insurance office where it is paid without any hassles (Reid, Para 16 & 17). Taiwan’s administrative costs are less than 2 per cent, which is one of the lowest rates in the world. (Reid, Para 19).
Thus, if we compare the health care system of Taiwan with that of the USA, we may conclude that the United States pays out a lot on health care without having coverage for everyone; the spent efforts and resources do not correspond to the results. Though Taiwan does not have enough money to pay for all the services, still the country provides the consumers with all of them (Reid, Para 25). Such organization of health care on the national level may be an example for the USA which today faces the task to create conditions for paying within its range and helping everyone within its healthcare system.
References
Baron, David. “Problems with the American Healthcare System”.DBaron.Org, 1998. Web.
Krugman, Paul, and Robin Wells. “The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It.”.NYBooks.Com, 2006. Web.
Reid, Thomas Roy. “Taiwan Takes Fast Track to Universal Health Care”.NPR.Org, 2008. Web.