User talk:Michellet82801/sandbox

Improving and Worsening the Quality of Care
Universal health care will not directly impact the quality of medical care because having coverage does not guarantee care and being insured does not necessarily result in "better health". Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that “access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare." The people who are for universal coverage are scared that those without health insurance can be declined from the necessary healthcare. Just by promising people access to health insurance does not automatically imply that people will receive care when needed. In addition, countries like Europe encounter serious equipment and doctor scarcity since they cannot care for everyone adequately; the wait can be weeks or months. In South Africa, there is a “ratio of less than one doctor per 1,000 people” This demonstrates how having such a large population can come to a disadvantage concerning one’s health and shows the future problems that will come with this healthcare plan. It is pointless for people to say they have health insurance. Doctors dismiss pivotal procedures to patients waiting for admission with about 50,000 operations are called off because of shortages. In 2006, nearly 900,000 Britons were waiting for admission to hospitals. This brings to question whether universal health care is even worth it since so many people suffer from pain and will most likely die before treatment from waiting. Politicians and Americans lack the comprehension that there is a “big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.” The New England Journal of Medicine discovered that Americans aren't obtaining the proper quality of care because “health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care.” When being insured, it does not always have an outcome of better health since you can’t access the health services with the large population causing waiting and shortages. Moreover, universal healthcare can be unfair at times when some people will get access to healthcare services while others don't and must wait which arouses another problem. How good one’s health is doesn't depend on whether or not you have health insurance all the time.

Another viewpoint argues that universal healthcare will improve the quality of medical care by discussing that covering the sick can be profitable, showing the healthcare systems around the world, Americans undergo low-quality care, and mentions the increase in doctors, patient visits, and beds. There needs to be an evaluation of the conditions that many governments have embraced with universal health care programs in Europe. The programs are run with remarkably lower budgets and covers more people compared to the American health care system. Additionally, Europeans enjoy greater access to hospitals and doctors who don't make choices depending on profits, but on the patient’s need. Based on these reasons, it comes down to the conclusion that embracing universal health care replicated after the system in Europe could have the outcome of higher-quality care for Americans. It is important to note that covering the sick can be profitable. Since covering the sick can be profitable there is a motive to improve the quality of care. Insurers gain profit with a complicated strategy where the Legislation in Congress would borrow from a country by generating a trade so people have the opportunity to purchase insurance. Gerard Anderson said, “There is virtually nothing in the bills that is going to control costs.” He also said, “In terms of making sure people are insured and making sure that you can't be denied coverage, that's much more like the European systems.” This reflects the fundamentals of universal health coverage by stating the basic tasks that deal with it.