Introduction
The goal of healthcare frameworks in all countries is to ensure that citizens and non-citizens receive quality and affordable medical services. Many countries, including the U.S., have established systems that are meant to help in achieving this objective. Hence, it is crucial to examine the structure of the U.S. healthcare framework, compare it with that of the UK, and determine the extent to which the American system inhibits the health of its population, including non-citizens.
Structure of Healthcare in the U.S. Compared to the UK
The American healthcare structure is principally privatized and detached from the national government. Many medical services providers operate in the private sector (Gruber, 2017). Hence, their availability in the federal administration is minimal. Most of those who wish to join the U.S. healthcare bazaar are required to seek official approval by a private entity where they can be granted the permission to enter an already operational system, begin a new practice as proprietors, or offer their services in various authorized medical facilities. Regarding insurance, which dominates most healthcare systems in the U.S., many private institutions have taken over the role of providing these services compared to state-owned agencies.
According to data provided by the Commonwealth Fund, roughly 60% of American citizens obtained basic healthcare insurance through private entities while approximately 30% accessed such covers through the federal government (Gruber, 2017). Medicare and Medicaid are the most recognized health insurance providers in America. However, they have significant variations that revolve around their manner of administration and financing.
The healthcare system in the UK seems to embrace the exact opposite of what is practiced in the U.S. As earlier mentioned, although the American healthcare structure is significantly privatized, the UK enjoys the biggest state-owned healthcare framework. In addition, while the U.S. seems to allocate most of its finances to medical services, the UK, particularly England, appears to invest the least amount of funds in healthcare among developed countries. Specifically, while approximately 16% of America’s financial aid goes to health care, only about 8% of England’s monetary investments are allocated to medical services (Frakt & Carroll, 2018). However, the UK’s healthcare structure has been criticized for its lack of responsiveness when compared to that of the U.S.
How the U.S. Healthcare Inhibits Health for all its Citizens
The U.S. has made significant efforts to ensure the accessibility of medical services to its population. Nevertheless, its structure seems to restrain the number of those who are eligible for such healthcare privileges. Accessibility to medical services in America is only left to those who can acquire insurance covers in their workplaces. In addition, healthcare is not readily available to people who are not recognized through a national government’s healthcare cover initiative.
Moreover, unless one can afford insurance costs or fund their medical services privately, chances of getting health care services in the U.S. are negligible. Hence, this system may be considered inhibitive because it does not accommodate all its citizens in the healthcare service-provision scheme.
Non-citizens in America may be disadvantaged, especially if they are not entitled to one of the acknowledged healthcare coverage programs in this country. Countries such as Switzerland and Canada seem to recognize non-citizens’ need for medical services more when compared to America. However, the U.S. has made considerable efforts to avail healthcare covers to its non-citizen population (Callahan, 2017). It also continues to encourage any undocumented immigrants to seek help to be recognized and made eligible for medical services.
Conclusion
Significant efforts have been put in place to avail medical services to all citizens in the U.S., regardless of their citizenship, gender, sex, and religious backgrounds. However, compared to the UK, the American healthcare structure has some loops that may need to be addressed for people to achieve maximum benefits. As revealed in this paper, this country may need to expand its services to include more non-citizens, immigrants, and those who may not afford insurance covers.
References
Callahan, M. (2017). Providing healthcare for non-US citizens a ‘moral obligation,’ professors say. Medical Xpress. Web.
Frakt, A., & Carroll, A. E. (2018). Why the U.S. spends so much more than other nations on health care. New York Times. Web.
Gruber, J. (2017). Delivering public health insurance through private plan choice in the United States. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(4), 3-22.