More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique of the american healthcare system
Critiques of our healthcare system
Critique of the american healthcare system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The film “John Q”, directed by Nick Cassavetes, document the reality of the health care system in America. It illustrates the extreme struggles people go through when their financial state cannot fully support their medical expenses. As the protagonist John Q, he is a loving husband and a caring father. Although their family is relatively poor, they continue to make the best out of everyday. Then everything collapses when his son Michael, was diagnosed with rare a congenital disease where his heart is three times larger than children at his age. The only way to survive is to perform a heart transplant surgery on him, however, because of John's financial position and some other unknown factors, the HMO refuse to cover for the heart surgery. Thus, with his son's life on the edge of death, John without a choice decided to use his life and freedom to risk the chance of trading for his son’s access to free health care. In my own opinion, I believe that the method John used to solve this situation is unethical. Yes, I do agree that it is wrong …show more content…
However, in America, not all healthcare procedures are covered by the insurance company and many people are left to die because they cannot afford to pay for the amount due. Until the appearance of Obamacare which made American’s life a lot easier. According to The Express, the new president Donald Trump is planning on repealing the Obamacare because he believes that it is irrelevant and claims that it is a huge economic burden. Employers decrease their health care benefits, causing employees to feel a sense of insecure while working at their workplace. And in comparison to Canada, Canadian citizens are fully covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance) in which they are able to receive treatments at hospitals without paying an unaffordable amount of medical
First off, Berger states that this kidney transplant helped extend the precipitant’s life by at least ten years. This statement suggests that the harm the precipitant was in has been reduced. Since there is minimal harm being done, the ethical principle that is being demonstrated is non-maleficence. Secondly, another statement Berger makes is that the cost of this organ transplant is less than the cost of another treatment. Berger is taking into consideration the ethical principle of beneficence. The ethical principle of beneficence demonstrates that the benefits would outweigh the risks and costs. He is suggesting that the cost and benefits of obtaining an organ would exceed the costs and benefits if one were to choose a dialysis treatment. In continuation, another ethical principle that is explored through Berger’s statements is respect for autonomy. He examines this idea by stating that the patient and donor both have the right to do what they desire with their body. If the donor wants to receive a transplant that individual has the permission to allow it to happen. This type of approval is important because it gives the individual the respect of making decisions. Lastly, Berger mentions that allowing organ sales would most likely decrease the number of individuals who need organs because money as a payment would be a good encouragement for the individuals who are willing and able to sell their organs. This is a demonstration of another ethical principle called justice. Justice is an ethical principle that takes into account the pros and cons of a certain situation. For example, if the organ sale was legal, it is most likely that there would be an increase in donors. Since there would be an increase in donors, one who is seeking an organ would have a high chance of finding a match. Therefore more patients would not have to wait and there could be an increase in the lives
The U.S. healthcare system is very different from Canada’s; in the U.S., most of the citizens within the US are un- insured or under-insured. The U.S. healthcare system operates mostly by the private sector. The U.S. provides a mixture of private insurance, employee-funded, and government programs. As for any direct federal government, funding of health care needs for any of its citizens is limited to programs that include Medicaid, Veteran’s Health Administration Medicare, and Children’s Health Insurance Program, which generates from the taxpayers (McGrail, van Doorslaer, Ross, & Sanmartin, 2009).
According to editorial one, universal health care is a right that every American should be able to obtain. The author provides the scenario that insurance companies reject people with preexisting conditions and that people typically wait to receive health care until it's too much of a problem due to the extreme costs. Both of these scenarios are common among Americans so the author uses those situations to appeal to the readers' emotions. Editorial one also includes logical evidence that America could follow Canada's and Europe's universal health care systems because both of those nations are excelling in it.
On a global scale, the United States is a relatively wealthy country of advanced industrialization. Unfortunately, the healthcare system is among the costliest, spending close to 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) towards funding healthcare (2011). No universal healthcare coverage is currently available. United States healthcare is currently funded through private, federal, state, and local sources. Coverage is provided privately and through the government and military. Nearly 85% of the U.S. population is covered to some extent, leaving a population of close to 48 million without any type of health insurance. Cost is the primary reason for lack of insurance and individuals foregoing medical care and use of prescription medications.
Out of all the industrialized countries in the world, the United States is the only one that doesn’t have a universal health care plan (Yamin 1157). The current health care system in the United States relies on employer-sponsored insurance programs or purchase of individual insurance plans. Employer-sponsored coverage has dropped from roughly 80 percent in 1982 to a little over 60 percent in 2006 (Kinney 809). The government does provide...
Those who would claim that Canada’s health care is a universal one tier system could refer to the legal terms of the Canada Health Care Act. In particular, the point that states, “Universality: All insured residents are entitled to the same level of health care.” (“Canada Health Care Act”, 2007). In fact, many Canadians feel they have a right to be covered financially for any and all medical costs. According to the Globe & Mail, “Canadians have developed an incredible sense of Medicare entitlement: They want all care for all people, instantly and free of charge.” (Andre, 2009). It is true that the original intention was to make health care services available for Canadians, but the guidelines offer the same service to Canadians covered by the health plan. However, certain problems arose and modifications were needed because not al...
Universal healthcare: a term feared by many politicians due to the communist connotation, but is it really all that bad? Over 58 countries have some sort of universal health coverage, such as England and France, which have single payer healthcare, meaning the government provides insurance for all citizens and pays for all healthcare expenses. The United States of America has insurance mandated healthcare, meaning the government requires all citizens to purchase insurance, usually provided through their jobs. In America, over 45 million people are uninsured, 20,000 of whom will die by the end of the year, compared to England or France. All residents, legal or not, are covered.
Health insurance comes as second nature to many of us. We grab that blue and white card and put it in our wallet and forget about it until we are sick or injured. When this happens, there it is, cushioning our fall like the extra padding it provided to cushion our wallets. This is not the case with everyone, however. Many Americans have no cushion to fall back on, no blue and white card to show the emergency room when they have an unexpected health concern. No HMO with a convenient co-pay amount when their son or daughter develops an ear infection.
Primary health care is the essential step to the Canadian health system. It is often associated with other specialized health care sectors, and community services. Many patients visit various services under primary health care such as family doctors' offices, mental health facilities, nurse practitioners' offices; they make phone calls to health information lines, for example, Tele-health; and receive suggestions from physicians and pharmacists (First Ministers; meeting on healthcare, n.d.). This service can prevent patients from visiting the emergency department, when all that is required is some guidance and advice. Having primary care services can reduce the consumption of acute beds, where only seriously ill patients can use the acute beds when it is available. Primary care not only deals with sickness care, but it helps patients receive preventable measures; it promotes healthy choices (Primary health care, n.d.). The focus on appropriate health care services, when and where they are needed, enhanced the ability of individuals to access primary care in various settings: at home, in a hospital or any number of family health care venues, such as Family Health Teams (FHTs), Community Health Centres (CHCs), or Nurse Practitioner- led clinics. This paper will look at the litigious heated argument in the Romanow Report concerning primary care. It will begin with a discussion of the outcome of the Accord on Health Care Renewal (2003) and The First Ministers' Meeting on the Future of Health in Canada (2004), both referring to primary care, which will then be followed with an assessment and analysis of the different ways in which the accords have been addressed in support of primary care. Followed by a discussion about the changes on ...
Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical belief in equal medical care for every individual regardless of their ability to pay for the service is severely violated (Caplan, 2004).
John Q is a emotional story about a family who is faced with an economical problem that many Americans struggle with. It is about a father whose son is dying from an enlarged heart. He needs a heart transplant in order to survive. This was a problem for the family because they did not have enough money for the hospital to proceed with the operation. John Quincy Archibald, the father, who goes by the alias John Q, tries everything in his power to save his son from dying. John performed actions that can be seen as both selfless and sacrificial and selfish.
Health insurance, too many American citizens, is not an option. However, some citizens find it unnecessary. Working in the health care field, I witness the effects of uninsured patients on medical offices. Too often, I see a “self-pay” patient receive care from their doctor and then fail to pay for it. Altogether, their refusal to pay leaves the office at a loss of money and calls for patients to pay extra in covering for the cost of the care the uninsured patient received. One office visit does not seem like too big of an expense, but multiple patients failing to pay for the care they receive adds up. Imagine the hospital bills that patients fail to pay; health services in a hospital are double, sometimes triple, in price at a hospital. It is unfair that paying patients are responsible for covering these unpaid services. Luckily, the Affordable Care Act was passed on March 23, 2010, otherwise known as Obamacare. Obamacare is necessary in America because it calls for all citizens to be health insured, no worrying about pre-existing conditions, and free benefits for men and women’s health.
Obviously, people who are rich already have an easier time getting an organ transplant. The rich can more easily afford the costs; the poor will not have any more of a cost disadvantage than they already have. Epstein gives these reasons to support his idea that selling organs is not immoral. He does not accurately consider the immoral consequences of allowing organ sales by law. Compensating people for a good deed that is supposed to be selfless will completely change the nature of the action and the motivation behind it. Using money as motivation can be dangerous because of the manner in which harvesting the organ may occur and because of who may be reaping the benefit of the organ sale. Someone could use violence or could misuse their judgment to obtain the money from the organs of another person. Organs should only be allowed to be donated, not sold. Traditionally, donating organs is an act of giving in order to save someone else’s life; it allows a person to be a Good Samaritan. Willingly donating an organ keeps the focus on giving to others, instead of using a motivator that can corrupt, such as money.
The movie “John Q” narrates a story of the financially constrained character John Quincy Archibald who ensures that his nine year old son at the brink of death, secures a heart transplant by any means possible. Throughout the movie, there is a compelling display of the love shared by a family and this is seen in the great lengths John went to save his son, however unlawful. The main characters are John, Michael and Denise Archibald, Rebecca Payne, Doctor Turner and Lt. Grimes.
John Q is a movie that touches on the effects of the private healthcare system. It addresses the problems with HMO’s, as it points out that Mike’s problem could have been detected earlier if the proper testing was done. Which is one of the major problems with the health insurance industries. While John’s actions to taking the ER patients and hospital staff hostages were completely wrong, one would argue that physicians’ delivery method was very poor. Dr. Turner and Rebecca played a minor part in John’s anger because, had they been a little but supportive and more sympathetic about the whole situation he would not have been so angry. This movie further brings to light the suffering and the lengths to which people have to go through daily to attain decent medical care.