Discussion essay: 700 words

Argument essay: 1500 words

Intro

Arg. for

.

Arg. against

Con-clusion

Health care is regarded by some as a service just like any other economic service, which can be bought and sold by private operators. Others believe that it is a special service that requires government intervention and funding. Private health systems are systems in which individuals pay for their own health care, while in public health systems the government provides health care for the population. Most countries have a mix of the two (Simons, 1999, p. 213) but the balance is determined by the political philosophy of the government in power. This essay will look at the arguments for and against publicly funded health systems in regard to cost efficiency, quality of care, and philosophical or moral issues.

Those that argue for government funding of public health systems believe that it is more cost effective overall. Chang (2003, p. 45) studied private health systems in the United States and concluded that “private health systems tend to spend funds combating relatively minor illnesses rather than dealing with major public issues”. An example of this may be seen in Evans’ recent study (2004, p. 34) which found that 90% of the budget of New York’s private hospitals was spent on….ETC.

However, advocates of private health systems argue that only private health systems provide truly top quality care. For example, Assisi (2000, p. 419) argues that the United States leads in innovative and top-quality health care, and she links this to the private health system there. Robinson (2003, p.2) agrees, stating that “private health systems have provided the world with cutting-edge medical technology and new treatments, due to the economic incentives that private health systems offer”.

ETC.

In conclusion, public health systems have a number of strengths: they are cost effective, they provide a decent quality of care to most citizens, and they provide what many feel is a basic human right. Although there are some good arguments for private health systems, it seems that on the evidence presented above, health care is not just another economic commodity, and every citizen has a right to free health care.

Health care is regarded by some as a service just like any other economic service, which can be bought and sold by private operators. Others believe that it is a special service that requires government intervention and funding. Private health systems are systems in which individuals pay for their own health care, while in public health systems the government provides health care for the population. Most countries have a mix of the two (Simons, 1999, p. 213) but the balance is determined by the political philosophy of the government in power. This essay will argue that governments should fund a nation’s health system for three main reasons: they are more cost efficient, they have relatively high quality of care for all citizens, not just a select few, and because health care is a basic human right.

One of the most important arguments for publicly funded health systems are that they are more cost effective. Unlike private health systems, the focus of expenditure is on those public health issues that are more important (Khendrajaya, 2003, p. 4). The inefficiency of private health systems was demonstrated in a study by Chang (2003, p. 45), who studied private health systems in the United States and concluded that “private health systems tend to spend funds combating relatively minor illnesses rather than dealing with major public issues”. An example of this may be seen in Evans’ recent study (2004, p. 34) which found that 90% of the budget of New York’s private hospitals was spent on….ETC ETC…

The cost efficiency of public health systems may also be demonstrated by comparing the health budgets of countries which have primarily private health systems with those that have primarily public health systems. For example, the United States spends nearly 15% of its budget on health but still does not manage to provide health care for any but the most poor (Angor, 1999, p. 56). In contrast, Australia, which has a mixed system but which does provide universal health care, spends only 9% of its budget on health (‘Health care in Australia’, 2004, p. 590). ETC ETC…

It may be true that only private health systems can provide truly top quality care. As Assisi (2000, p. 419) argues, the United States leads in innovative and top-quality health care, and she links this to the private health system there. Robinson (2003, p.2) agrees, stating that “private health systems have provided the world with cutting-edge medical technology and new treatments, due to the economic incentives that private health systems offer”. However, this expensive technology and top quality care is only available to the very richest. With a private health care system, the rich get one standard of care, while the poor have to make do with “a quality of care that may be described as second-best” (Angor, 1999, p. 89.) ETC ETC…

In conclusion, public health care systems are not only cost effective when compared to the scope of care provided, but also provide a quality of care that is not only consistently of a relatively high standard, but is available to all citizens, not just the rich. Moreover, health care can be seen to be a basic human right. It is clear that the current move away from public health systems toward more user-pays systems is not only regrettable, but ill-advised.

Expanded intro: includes thesis

First arg. for

second arg. for

Concess-ion/

refutation para.

Con-clusion