The Benefits of Universal / Socialized Medicine

A National Health Care Strategy Ensures Coverage, Medical Treatment

© Nicholas Morine

Apr 20, 2009
Doctor's Stethoscope, Socialized Medicine, barky, sxc
With America on the cusp of adopting a new national health care strategy, it is important to detail the benefits of ensuring coverage for all citizens, rich and poor.

The United States of America stands alone in one regard – that being that it is the only wealthy, first-world nation that does not have universal medical coverage for citizens. A dubious distinction, to say the least, but a distinction that may soon become history given the large amount of discussion and debate surrounding the issue both during the 2008 Presidential Election as well as the ensuing first term of the Obama Administration.

Examples in Practice – Canada and Europe

In 1946, Tommy Douglas and his Co-operative Commonwealth Foundation or CCF Party brought the first iteration of universal health care coverage to his home province of Saskatchewan. Since then, the practice has proven largely successful both in practice and with regards to popularity amongst the electorate - not surprisingly given that medical care is afforded to each and every Canadian citizen without fee. The exceptions to the modern universal coverage in Canada are the areas of dentistry, optometry, and prescription pharmaceuticals - though those who cannot afford mandatory prescription medicine are often afford individual funding through either Government agency or charitable organization.

Canadians today live in a situation wherein all legal residents of each individual province and territory are medically insured under a large group plan - thirteen provinces and territories in total. The quality of life due to this policy has increased substantially, particularly for the working and middle classes - this being reflected in the relative standard of living index provided by the UNDP or United Nations Development Programme. Canada places third, preceded by Iceland and Norway only and succeeded by a litany of other European nations with one major component of their GDP in alignment - a universal health care strategy.

While overall GDP per capita may not approach the numbers for those in the United States, this is not reflected statistically in any negative sense, with regard to the actual standard of living or the medical apparatus of the nation.

Factcheck.org Findings and The Actual Cost

When the question was raised on the nonpartisan debate website Factcheck.org with reference to whether or not health care was better in Canada than in the United States raised a few interesting findings. The first acknowledgment is that while wait times were slightly longer they were surely not as abysmally or commonly as long as made out to be by adversaries of the universal health care. The remainder of the findings prove most interesting, the key amongst them being:

  • On most measures of patient-reported physician quality, Canadians reported more satisfaction with the quality of their health care than their American counterparts.
  • The Commonwealth Fund (a nonpartisan private organization dedicated to raising the standards of medical care in industrialized nations) report shows fewer physician errors, lab errors, medication and prescription errors, and duplicate tests in Canada.
  • According to the World Health Organization, general health is significantly better in Canada; Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are higher, infant mortality is lower as well as maternal mortality being much lower. Canada reports lower death rates from non-communicable disease, cardiovascular disease, and injury.

On top of these findings, one must also consider the primary talking point used by opponents of universal health care in the United States - the apparent cost. Strikingly enough, the percentage of GDP consumed by health care in Canada, where all residents are universally insured, is 10.7% as opposed to a full 16.3% of GDP being allotted to health care in the United States – the only country in the developed world without universal coverage for it's citizens!

What Doctors Have to Say About It

Many grassroots political groups, most prominently the PNHP or Physicians for a National Health Program, rightly argue that the current health care system in the United States benefits the poor and middle classes very little, and serves the best interests of the pharmaceutical and drug industries. These physicians argue that, much like in the vein of the myriad other developed nations whom have successfully implemented national health care into their budget, Americans deserve better coverage regardless of socioeconomic status.

With all other nations whom have adopted universal or "socialized" health care coverage reporting much higher standards of living as well as ranging between 7-11% of their GDP being allotted for health care it seems somewhat antiquated to rebel against this rather progressive and humane ideal.

Other Articles Pertaining to Social Issues and Debates

Sources

Canada Health Act, 1984

Jessica Henig, Factcheck.org – "Is Health Care Better in Canada?"

Physicians for a National Health Program

United Nations Development Programme

World Health Organization


The copyright of the article The Benefits of Universal / Socialized Medicine in Activism is owned by Nicholas Morine. Permission to republish The Benefits of Universal / Socialized Medicine in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.


Doctor's Stethoscope, Socialized Medicine, barky, sxc
       


Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo