battle between the two parties when dealing with health reform, what is best for the American people, and what will help lower the National Health Expenditure. The American people’s belief in government intervention is slowly deteriorating, and the future looks dim.
Single-Payer System
Single-payer national health insurance, none as “Medicare for all” is a single public or quasi-public agency that organizes health care financing, and delivery of care is in private hands (What is, 2016). Which means under the a single-payer system, all Americans will be covered for all medical services. The disappearance of premiums will occur, 95% of all households will save money, patients will not have co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctors and hospitals (What is, 2016). The con’s in a single-payer health care system is; Higher taxes that is necessary to pay for single-payer, but would save the U.S. money; The United Kingdom and Canada are running into issue with the universal coverage dealing with finance, just like the U.S. when it comes to tremendous cost of new technologies and new expensive drugs; A form of rationing due to budget restrictions that create
…show more content…
This will bring a surge of elderly people with functional and cognitive limitations; Functional limitations- physical problems that limit a person’s ability to perform routine daily activities; Cognitive limitations- losses in mental acuity that may also restrict a person’s ability to perform such activities (Wiener, J. M., 2013). Long- term care services are going to grow in the next 10 years, two- thirds of the total spending for long-term care come from government health care programs (Wiener, J. M., 2013). The long-term care services expenditure for the elderly is 1.3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), projected expenditures by 2050 will range from 1.9% to 3.3% GDP (Wiener, J. M.,