The United States is the only developed country that does not provide universal health insurance to its citizens. The majority of the U.S. population receives private health insurance as part of employer-provided health insurance (EPHI), while others are covered through social programs; however, 15% of Americans remain uninsured (Tumialán, 2019). Therefore, the government should strive for universal health care (UHC) system, allowing access to health services for all citizens regardless of social and insurance status (Voorhoeve et al., 2017). Transitioning to UHC will improve employees’ physical and emotional well-being and boost their job performance without affecting employers.
The Universal Health Care system can provide substantial benefits to the population. The benefits of the UHC include improvement in the nation’s health, reduction in economic disparities, and economic growth due to improved labor performance (Bloom et al., 2018). Although EPHI gives employees psychological comfort, it has no significant impact on medical outcomes (Reif et al., 2020). Since most output in the industry depends on employees’ productivity, better health outcomes will benefit employers. There is a possibility that UHC may affect higher-compensated sectors. However, if the government subsidizes UHC, employers should not be affected because the entire system will be aimed at providing universal quality care and not obtaining profit.
Overall, Universal Health Care sponsored by the government can provide exceptional benefits to the population. UHC system can improve the state of health and increase employees’ productivity, improving companies’ outcomes. Since UHC will provide high-quality universal healthcare to all citizens, the participation of private organizations in providing EPHI will no longer be necessary. Therefore, employers and employees should benefit from the Universal Health Coverage model.
The majority of the American population obtains their health coverage from employers. Since access to health services is a fundamental human right, every healthcare system should deliver preventive and curative care to the entire population (Osoro et al., 2020). Although the healthcare system cannot solve all societal problems, it is still an integral component of its prosperity (Woolf, 2019). However, the U.S. healthcare system is not universal but incorporates private, social, and state insurance models (Tumialán, 2019). The reason why the government preferred to encourage the private insurance model, which includes employer-provided health insurance (EPHI), was because the United States, as the country with higher living standards, would be more successful with voluntary insurance (Tumialán, 2019). Health insurance from employers allows workers to have access to medical services, but EPHI can be costly for companies due to employees’ job absenteeism and lawsuits in case of failure to provide insurance.
EPHI has positive and negative aspects for employees and employers. As discussed by Tracie in the post, EPHI gives too much power to the employer, allowing them to withhold some medical services from coverage. Another disadvantage of employer-provided insurance is that the loss of employment results in health insurance withdrawal (Montoya, 2020). However, according to Al’s post, the disadvantages of this model for the employer include the legal obligation for companies larger than 50 employees to provide health insurance to their workers. Moreover, employers are restricted from firing their employees for prolonged job absenteeism, severely affecting firms’ profit (Bialowolski et al., 2020). One of the advantages for employees includes access to medical services with lower out-of-pocket payments with EPHI (Tumialán, 2019). Another advantage of this model for workers is that there is no need to find a health insurance agency because, as discussed by Eric, the employer chooses a plan for workers, saving their time. Indeed, the advantages of EPHI outweigh the disadvantages in terms of employers’ legal obligations and convenience for employees.
Overall, EPHI is the predominant healthcare insurance model available in the United States. Disadvantages of this system for workers include excess power for employers in deciding on healthcare coverage. However, this model is a disadvantage for employers that are legally required to provide EPHI to all workers. The advantages of EPHI for workers include access to medical services, lower out-of-pocket payment, and saving time due to the chosen plan provided by the employer.
References
Bialowolski, P., McNeely, E., VanderWeele, T. J., & Weziak-Bialowolska, D. (2020). Ill health and distraction at work: Costs and drivers for productivity loss. PloS ONE, 15(3), 1-15. Web.
Bloom, D. E., Khoury, A., & Subbaraman, R. (2018). The promise and peril of universal health care. Science, 361(6404), 1-8. Web.
Montoya, M. M. (2020). Re-examination of health disparities in the United States: A 3-pronged health intervention proposal. UTSA Journal of Undergraduate Research and Scholarly Works, 7. Web.
Osoro, A. A., Atitwa, E. B., & Moturi, J. K. (2020). Universal health coverage. World Journal of Social Science Research, 7(4), 14-28. Web.
Reif, J., Chan, D., Jones, D., Payne, L., & Molitor, D. (2020). Effects of a workplace wellness program on employee health, health beliefs, and medical use: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA internal medicine, 180(7), 952-960.
Tumialán, L. M. (2019). Healthcare systems in the United States. In Quality Spine Care (pp. 155–169). Springer.
Voorhoeve, A., Tan-Torres Edejer, T., Kapiriri, L., Norheim, O. F., Snowden, J., Basenya, O., Bayarsaikhan, D., Chentaf, I., Eyal, N., Folsom, A., Halina Tun Hussein, R., Morales, C., Ostmann, F., Ottersen, T., Prakongsai, P., Saenz, C., Saleh, K., Sommanustweechai, A., Wikler, D., & Zakariah, A. (2017). Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage: applying principles to difficult cases. Health Systems & Reform, 3(4), 301-312. Web.
Woolf, S. H. (2019). Necessary but not sufficient: Why health care alone cannot improve population health and reduce health inequities. Annals of Family Medicine, 17 (3), 196-199. Web.