Comparative Public Policy Social Sciences and Analysis (Research Paper Sample)

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY
Student Name
Course Number:
Course Name
Date
Introduction
Healthcare is one of the most essential needs of all human beings, regardless of the society in which they live. As such, it is basically a human right that no individual should be deprived of across the world. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case. Along the same lines, it is important to understand that the government of any nation is tasked with the responsibility of providing its citizens with reliable, affordable, and high-quality healthcare services that meet their needs. While this position applies to all governments, those of industrialized nations have demonstrated the most significant degree of prowess when it comes to providing healthcare to their citizens. In essence, all governments should strive to provide their citizens with universalized healthcare that ensures the entire population is insured and that it can receive healthcare services for little to no money at all.
At the core of the service delivery exhibited by such governments and their health departments are robust and organized healthcare systems specifically tailored to meet the people’s needs. This is especially true for nations that have universal healthcare. However, as elaborated by Raffel (2007), the establishment of universal healthcare is not in itself a guarantee of reliable, affordable, and high-quality healthcare. The design of the healthcare system also influences the ability of said system to deliver upon its mandate to the citizens. It can have significant sociopolitical, health, and even economic ramifications on a country, and so should be carefully considered. The central question of this paper, therefore, becomes: How does the design of a universal healthcare system affect the delivery of health services in industrialized nations?[Raffel, Health Care and Reform, 292.] [Rosenau and Lako, “An Experiment with Regulated Competition,” 1033.]
Considering the fact that a vast majority of industrialized nations have a working universal healthcare system in place, it comes as a great surprise that the USA does not ascribe to such a system. Instead, the US relies on a fragmented healthcare system that has proven to be costly to citizens as well as ineffective when it comes to achieving inclusivity. The USA is one of the largest and strongest economies in the world, but its reliance on and loyalty to a system that is faulty raises critical questions about the future of healthcare in the USA going forward. Across the developed world, the USA is slowly falling behind on healthcare, and if appropriate corrective measures are not immediately implemented, this lag stands to jeopardize the health, and lives, of millions of Americans in the near and distant futures. Industrialized nations such as Netherlands, Britain, Germany and Canada, among others, provide universal healthcare to their citizens. Their commitment to consistently improving their systems highlights their conviction in the reliability, inclusivity, and success of universal healthcare when it comes to delivering health services to citizens. The adoption of universal healthcare by the majority of industrialized nations is demonstrative of its strengths and reliability in delivering healthcare, and insights from these countries can act as critical pointers for reforming the American healthcare system and informing the adoption of universal healthcare in the US.[Maarse, “The Privatization of Health Care in Europe,” 983.]
Literature Review
Virtually across the entire world, government has existed as the mandated body charged with facilitating the realization of the citizenry’s needs and subsequently improving their lives. While this ideal may occasionally be flaunted in certain systems of government such as a dictatorship, it does not erode the fact that it is the responsibility of the government, especially in systems of democratic rule, to provide citizens with healthcare services. Because of this, politicians and policy makers are mandated to consistently work towards the realization of an effective, reliable, and affordable healthcare system that meets the needs of the public and serves all citizens without favor.[Raffel, Health Care and Reform, 296.]
Historically, the administration of health services in the past was largely unstructured, unreliable, and inconsistent. This often resulted in low-quality services being offered to citizens. Over time, as present-day industrialized nations grew their economies and established more stable systems and policies of government and administration, healthcare slowly became an important issue of national interest. To address this growing need to provide quality healthcare to its citizens, governments resorted to a variety of methods, but which are essentially based on two models: 1) an out-of-pocket system and 2) a universal healthcare system. In an out-of-pocket system, patients are required to pay the full costs of the healthcare services that they receive. This is not only an expensive venture, but a challenging one, seeing as this model is most common in the non-industrialized countries and regions of the world, which unfortunately, are in the majority. In such systems, the poor are often unable to afford professional healthcare services, and thus have to rely on local healers and remedies to address their healthcare problems. In some cases, it is not uncommon to find patients paying for services using commodities in their possession. This kind of system grossly discriminates against the poor in the society, and directly denies them access to professional healthcare services and facilities.[Ibid., 293.]
A universal healthcare system is essentially a healthcare system whereby all the citizens of a country, regardless of social, economic, or political disparities, are provided with healthcare services and facilities and the associated financial protection required to ensure the delivery and provision of said services and facilities respectively. While it is direct in how it approaches healthcare, a universal healthcare system is typically based on one of three distinct models: The Beveridge Model, The Bismarck Model, and The National Health Insurance Model. These models all agree on the need to provide high-quality, affordable, and reliable healthcare to its citizens. Along the same line, they differ greatly on how the system in use is financed, the ownership of healthcare facilities, the structure of the insurance system for citizens, and even the delivery of care. It is worth noting that each model has its fair share of advantages and drawbacks, and these affect the overall effectiveness of the system. In essence, these three models represent three different schools of thought on how a government can provide healthcare to all its citizens. To fully understand the various implications of these models and how they perform as a healthcare system model, this paper will explore the healthcare systems of Great Britain, Germany, and Canada which exercise the Beveridge, Bismarck, and National Health Insurance models respectively.[Wendt, “Mapping European Healthcare Systems,” 434.]
The Beveridge Model
The Beveridge model of healthcare is one of the greatest achievements of Great Britain. It is named after William Beveridge, who is credited with designing the country’s National Health System (NHS). At its core, the NHS was a revolutionary body that redefined how healthcare is designed, administered, and monitored in the UK. The Beveridge model is designed to approach healthcare like any other government business. This, therefore, ensures that the financing of healthcare in the UK is done by the government, and is facilitated through tax payments made by all citizens. In this way, the health services that citizens receive are free and fully paid for, but this provision only applies to the point of use. To facilitate this provision of services, a fair share of the clinics and hospitals are government-owned, and are thus under the direct control of the government. This not only provides a sense of order, but also consistency and control, both of which are essential in the delivery of healthcare. Similarly, the Beveridge model allows for some physicians to be practice privately while the government is also tasked with employing physicians. This partnership provides variety and value for all citizens, regardless of whether they choose to visit private or public healthcare institutions.[Wendt, Frisina, and Rothgang, “Healthcare System Types,” 84.]
In addition to these features, the Beveridge model identifies the government as the only payer of bills. Because of this provision, the government is able to control what services doctors offer and how they provide them. In this way, patients get to experience a bill-free healthcare system, where they never have to receive a bill from a physician in a public healthcare institution. In the same vein, it is worth noting that this model is identified as having significantly low per capita costs for healthcare delivery. This is purposely because the government controls spending and is keen on spending as little as possible in delivering the best healthcare. Additionally, the government, as the chief controller of healthcare, works to develop robust national health policies and public health programs, both of which are vital to delivering quality healthcare at all levels across the healthcare spectrum. In essence, the Beveridge model is representative of a system of socialized medicine where citizens enjoy healthcare perks based on their taxes and not on insurance payments.[Maarse, “The Privatization of Health Care in Europe,” 999.] [Raffel, Health Care and Reform, 237.]
While lucrative, this model is not free of faults. First, since healthcare is essentially a social service, providing h...