Health Care Practitioner System

Argumentative Case

With the upcoming election health care seems to be in talks again, just like with every election year, left sided candidates tend to lean towards a more equalized single paying system, where as the right wing candidates like to keep “America great” with it’s current marketplace system allowing more choice for Americans. Some might argue that a health care system for all would be costlier on tax payers; however, many studies show that a two-tier system would save American’s costs in a lot of ways. The argument will point out that the choices made in the health care marketplace only come at a cost for American taxpayers and federal and state governments (Munro, 2013). This argument will begin with the harm the current system

Continuing with the status quo will only cause more expenditures to be added causing a fall in our economy and tax increases for Americans, overall (Cicconi & Strug, 2010). However, on that same note a single-payer system would not be the most preferred option due to the fact that Regional Health Authorities (RHA) and Family Practitioner Committees (FPC) can just play hot potato with patients’ bills. The RHA is responsible for divvying out the budget to hospitals that are located in their area and outside of their area is the FPC with is responsible for remunerating general practitioners, dentists, and pharmacists. Thus patients that don’t fit into the borders of these guidelines get shifted around from the GP to the hospital, to the community, and then back to the hospital again. The government would be able to shift costs with a single payer system onto social security in the case of elderly patients often times sending them to nursing homes. Hospitals would shift costs back onto the patients by keeping waiting lines long, thereby increasing demand for private services. At the end of all of this hand ball, the cost will be laid in the lap of the tax payer (Cicconi & Strug, 2010). Furthermore, in regards to the upcoming election, Bernie Sanders has proposed a single payer system of sorts that details how hard a single-payer system could put our nation in financial ruin. Berniecare would replace the entirety of the existing U.S. health care system with a new single-payer one and its total cost would be $40.9 trillion from 2017 to 2026, raising taxes to cover $13.7 trillion in new government spending, according to analysists (Roy, 2016). Continuing on, a big chunk of today’s government health care spending is undertaken by states and localities, not the federal government. As a result, Berniecare would increase federal spending by $32.7