The American health care system is decomposing with the passing of time. It’s extremely difficult for politicians to argue that our third-party health care system is working in America. The United States is currently ranked 37th in the world according to the World Health Organization. America spends nearly 16% of our Gross Domestic Product on health care spending, which is more than any other country. There are roughly 46 million Americans that do not have any form of health insurance. The majority of citizens and experts (including President Obama) believe that the health care system needs to be reformed, but disagreement has formed over which type of reform is best.

The last major attempt to reform the U.S. health care system took place in the early 1990′s. Hilary Clinton was put in charge of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, which is more commonly referred to as the “Clinton health care plan.” The plan was the first major attempt at enacting a Universal Health Care system into the United States. It failed. Many people blamed the insurance companies, arguing that the lobbyists had bought Congressional votes. Others claim that the plan was too costly and poorly written. Whatever the reason, major health care reform was ignored for the 14 years that followed. But now, with more and more Americans losing their health insurance due to the struggling economy, and with President Obama promoting ideas of change and progress, health care reform has become a hot topic in Washington.

There are several differing ideas for health care reform… and everyone wants their voice heard. Since February 2009, there have been several “closed-door meetings” held in Washington. The meetings are designed to discuss the right health care reform for America; contributors include: doctors, nurses, insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists, and politicians. There are many plans, and each one has its own technical differences, but there are two main health care ideologies that have many citizens and politicians divided.

The first idea for reform is for the government to regulate the current health care system, and President Obama seems to be favoring the idea. The proposal is an adaptation of the current third-party payer system. The proposed plan would require every American to either purchase private-insurance or buy into a government-run insurance plan, and the government would provide free (or low-cost)  insurance for the poor.

The second ideology for Universal Health Care in America is a Single-Payer system or a National Health Insurance. A single-payer health care system is where health care is paid for citizens from a single fund, usually the government. Great Britain uses a single-payer system in their society and it works well; Great Britain is ranked 17th in the world when it comes to health care. In a single-payer system, like Great Britain’s, everyone is covered by the government, and the government regulates prices to ensure that it is affordable. A single-payer system would eliminate the need for insurance companies, which is why lobbyists are constantly fighting a single-payer plan.

After months of research I have concluded that the Obama administration SHOULD attempt to convert the United States to a single-payer system because it is the best way to guarantee affordable insurance for ALL Americans. There are three main arguments against a single-payer system, and I will address all three.

The first argument against a single-payer system stems from a general misunderstanding from the public. Many believe that single-payer will cause America to drown in taxes and create month-long waits for doctor visits. Studies show that taxation from single-payer would be cheaper than current prices of premiums from insurance companies. And while there are occasional waits for elective procedures, there are never waits for critical care or doctor visits. A portion of the public fears government run programs, and believe that “socialized medicine” will be a safe-haven for government abuse. A single-payer system will create the need for government transparency, but a single-payer program is guaranteed to waste less money than our current system because insurance companies currently use portions of premium pay to fund advertising and “administrative costs.”

Second, there are many who argue that a single-payer system is not politically feasible in America. President Obama may even fit into this category because he has said in the past that he supports a single-payer system, but he is currently endorsing a government-regulated for-profit system. Many see a single-payer system as impossible in the U.S. because the insurance companies have so much money and so much influence in Washington between lobbyists and financial persuasion. The argument is that some reform is better than no reform. However, I refuse to concede the power of health care to the mighty insurance companies, while we lowly Serfs accept subservience to their will. I refuse to accept the world as it is based on the argument that “that’s just the way it is.”

The final argument is voiced by some individuals in our capitalistic society that do not believe they should have to pay for another person’s medical care. Arguments include: “it’s their problem, not mine; why should my money go to pay for people who are not taking care of themselves?; I’ve got to take care of myself and my family, I shouldn’t have to be taxed for the health care of others.” These are logical (and even understandable) arguments, but it approaches health care as a purchasable service for some, rather than a human right for all. This is the key to the flawed system of insurance companies; it’s a market. Health care should be designed and delivered around a system that has only one goal: to help people. But the current system tries to accomplish health care and profit in one packaged-business. A for-profit system does not work well, and it re-affirms the flawed thinking of many Americans that health care should be earned.

30 sources…

1) Journalistic # 1/ Multimedia # 1
2) Journalistic # 2
3) Journalistic # 3
4) Citizen # 1
5) Journalistic # 4
6) Institutional # 1
7) Journalistic # 5/ Multimedia # 2
Institutional # 2
9) Journalistic # 6/ Multimedia # 3
10) Institutional # 3/ Image # 1
11) Citizen # 2/ Blog # 1/ Image # 2
12) Institutional # 4/ Multimedia # 4
13) Institutional # 5/ Multimedia # 5
14) Institutional # 6/ Image # 3
15) Journalistic # 7/ Multimedia # 6
16) Academic Research # 1
17) Citizen # 3/ Blog # 2/ Image # 4
18) Academic Research # 2
19) Citizen # 4/ Blog # 3
20) Institutional # 7
21) Citizen # 5/ Image # 5
22) Academic Research # 3
23) Citizen # 6/ Interview # 1
24) Citizen # 7/ Interview # 2
25) Academic Research # 4
26) Journalistic # 8/ Multimedia # 6
27) Citizen # 8/ Interview # 3
28) Citizen # 9/ Interview # 4
29) Journalistic # 9/ Image # 6
30) Academic Research # 5

Summary: Dr. Victor R. Fuchs publishes an article in the New England Journal of Medicine to discuss why there is so much talk of health care reform, but so little action.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Academic Research

What is it? Article written by Dr. Victor R. Fuchs
Publication Information: Jan. 15, 2009
Author: Dr. Victor R. Fuchs
Location: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/3/208
Accessed: Mar. 9, 2009

Support:
Victor R. Fuchs, Ph.D. and Professor of Economics and of Health Research and Policy. He works at the Center for Health Policy at Stanford.
New England Journal of Medicine, peer-reviewed academic journal
Niccoló Machiavelli, philosopher, writer and politician during the 16th century
Victor R. Fuchs is the author of “Health Care Reform- Why so Much Talk and so Little Action?“The article is published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the most widely-read and respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. The New England Journal of Medicine was founded in 1812 by Dr. John Collins Warren. In the article Dr. Fuchs quotes the famous Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, who established the “Law of Reform.” Dr. Fuchs uses the Machiavelli’s law to illustrate the overwhelmingly challenges that will accompany a new system of health care.

Audience and Agenda:
The New England Journal of Medicine reaches an audience of 419,000 people, and the journal is read in large part by a wealthy audience consisting of doctors and others in the health care field. Readers of the journal visit the website to update themselves on information circulating the health care field. The author, Victor R. Fuchs, has spent a great deal of his career researching Universal Health Care, and he has written for the New England Journal of Medicine on a number of occasions. Dr. Fuchs did receive a grant from Blue Shield of California Foundation to write this particular article, which means that the insurance company believed it would somehow benefit from the article.

Usefulness:
Dr. Fuchs discusses the reasons why there is so much talk about health care reform but actual action is non-existent. He believes that reform will not take place until the vast majority of the country can unite under one system because there are currently too many ideologies for reform. Dr. Fuchs does address a single-payer system as a reform contender but he neither praises nor condemns the system. However, one of the chief arguments against single-payer is that it is not politically feasible, but Dr. Fuchs gives several examples of historical decisions that were not considered feasible in their time. “Examples include the emancipation of slaves, the creation of a strong and independent central bank, the establishment of Social Security, the fluctuation of foreign exchange rates, and most recently, more than $1 trillion devoted to bailing out large financial institutions.” So, even though a single-payer system does not seem like it is the most feasible form of reform at present, it does not mean that it is the wrong decision for the country.

Works cited:
New England Journal of Medicine
Google Scholar
CHP/PCOR
quantcast.com
wikipedia.org
Ulrichs

For other Academic Research posts, check out…
16) National Health Insurance
18) The Argument of Justice
22) Is Single-Payer Not the Answer?
25) The Netherlands Could be a Model for the U.S.

Summary: President Barack Obama has nominated Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Journalistic. Alternative

What is it? Image and article about Kathleen Sebelius
Publication Information: Mar. 2, 2009
Author: David Alexander
Location: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/12955/
Accessed: Mar. 3, 2009

Support:
Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas Governor and nominated Health Secretary
Nancy-Ann DeParle, Nominated to work with Sebelius
John Boehner, House Republican Leader
In February of 2009, President Barack Obama’s original nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, withdrew because of political pressure due to… tax complications. Kathleen Sebelius is Obama’s latest nomination for the position. If approved, Sebelius would likely work alongside Nancy-Ann DeParle who is a former health official for the Clinton administration. Republican House Leader John Boehner believes that Sebelius will be a good fit for the job. Sebelius has been the Governor of Kansas since 2002, and she served in the House of represenatives for eight years.

Audience and Agenda:
The location of the picture and the article can be found on the website of Epoch Times, which is a privately-owned newspaper. The photograph and article were originally published on Reuters, which is a news service that is based in the United Kingdom. Reuters is the much larger paper out of two, serving nearly 23 million people worldwide. If you travel to both sites you will see that in the Reuters article the photograph is just a small thumbnail, but at the Epoch Times website the photograph clearly dominates over the story.

Usefulness:
The nomination of Tom Daschle for Secretary of Health and Human Services turned out to be a flop, and it was the first real mistake of Obama’s presidency. Daschle was considered a logical choice for the job because he was an insider in Washington due to the fact that he is the former Senate Majority Leader. This time around Obama has chosen an outsider; not many people have heard of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. The reform plans of Governor Sebelius are somewhat unknown at present. The Republican House Leader John Boehner believes that Sebelius is a good pick, and that should worry single-payer advocates because Boehner may support health care reform, but not a single-payer system. Obama believes that Sebelius is the right person to head his health care reform initiative, but it may not be great news for those who want to see a single-payer system. However, Sebelius has refused political contributions from insurers in the past, and she was responsible for preventing Blue Cross Blue Shield from expanding their dominance in Kansas through a merger. So, she is ready to regulate insurance companies, but the question becomes: will she advocate for a single-payer system?

Works cited:
http://www.governor.ks.gov/about/bio.htm
quantcast.com
wikipedia.org
google.com
Reuters
The Epoch Times
http://www.politicalbase.com/people/nancy-ann-deparle/31229

For other Journalistic sources check out…
26) Discussion on “Democracy Now”
15) Frontline Explores the Health Care Systems in Five other Countries
9) Obama signs first piece of health care legislation as President
7) Michael Moore on CNN
5) Warning: Set Reasonable Goals
3) A New Direction
2) In Obama’s own Words
1) Luke Mitchell on Democracy Now

Summary: Health Educator Ramah Leith believes that a single-payer system would be an appropriate shift from our third-party system. She arrived to this conclusion using both logical and ethical reasoning.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Citizen. Stakeholder

What is it? Interview
Publication Information: Mar. 2, 2009
Author: None
Location: Eugene, OR
Accessed: Mar. 2, 2009

Support:
Ramah Leith
The work experience and research as a Health Educator and Peer Health Education Internship Instructor over the past eight years at the University of Oregon.

Audience and Agenda:
Ramah Leith earned her Bachelor of Arts in Health and Human Sciences, and her Masters in Public Health Education. She has worked at the University of Oregon as a Health Educator and Peer Health Education Internship Instructor for eight years. Leith has also operated many other stations in the health care field including: Health and Disability Services Program Coordinator, Outreach Volunteer and Service Learning Instructor, and a HIV, CPR and First Aid Instructor for the Red Cross.

Usefulness:
Ramah Leith believes that health care should be a basic right and service in America, and she feels that for a government to exclude 46 million Americans from health care is “inhumane.” 18,000 people in America die each year due to lack of health care coverage, and every 30 seconds an American declares bankruptcy because of unpayable medical bills. Leith believes that we should enact a single-payer system in the United States to assure that all Americans are covered and that all are able to get the care that they need. The Obama administration has recently been discussing an adaptation of the current health care system to insure more people and keep the insurance companies intact. But Leith argues that government regulation of insurance companies will drain more money and resources than a single-payer system would. Unfortunately, the road-blocks that are preventing single-payer do not consist of ethical arguments; instead it is a combination of the political framework of America, an un-educated and misinformed public, and the market-based system that has entrenched the country in a third-party payer system. Amidst the lack of support from Washington for a single-payer system, Leith believes that a single payer-system is the future for America because it is starting to affect more and more people. She says that it’s getting to the point where so many people are “pissed off” about the current system that a single-payer system seems probable in the future.

Works cited:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~uoshc/aboutus/staff/leith.html
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
pnhp.org
google.com

For other Interview posts check out…
27) Barbara Walter
24) Jon Palfreman
23) Bob Templin

Summary: A telephone interview with Barbara Walter, who is a Registered Nurse in the State of California, to discuss health care reform, single-payer systems, and the Obama administration.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Citizen. Stakeholder

What is it? Telephone interview
Publication Information: Mar. 1, 2009
Author: None
Location: None.
Accessed: Mar. 1, 2009

Support:
Barbara Walter
Forty years of work and experience in the health care field.

Audience and Agenda:
Barbara Walter has worked in the health care field for that past forty years, and is currently a Registered Nurse at the San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center in California. She has achieved her Masters in Science and throughout her life she has dedicated her time and energy to help others.

Usefulness:
Barbara Walter believes that health care should be viewed as a human right; not a sole privilege for those with money and jobs. She feels that President Obama contains a moral compass that has been missing in Washington as of late, and that he will approve measures that will improve health care in America. Even though Mrs. Walter would love to see a Universal Health Care system in the United States, she feels that there are currently too many political and socio-economic barriers that are preventing such reform. In all likelihood, health care reform will include changes to the current system through government regulation. So, a larger amount of the population will become insured, but Mrs. Walter’s views this type of reform as a mere stepping stone to a single-payer system. She also believes that a single-payer system will be borne out of an opportunistic window. With talks of change and new directions in Washington, many single-payer advocates are hoping that the Obama administration proves to be that very window of opportunity.

Works cited:
wikipedia.org
http://medschool.ucsf.edu/sfgh
google.com

For other Interview posts check out…
28) Ramah Leith
24) Jon Palfreman
23) Bob Templin

Summary: Televised debate that argues between two different types of reform. One type wants to see a single-payer system, but the other wants government regulation in the current market-based system.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Journalistic. Alternative

What is it? Televised debate on “Democracy Now.”
Publication Information: Feb. 27,2009
Author: Democracy Now
Location: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/27/can_us_achieve_meaningful_health_care
Accessed: Feb. 28, 2009

Support:
Dr. David Himmelstein, professor at Harvard University and the co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Len Nichols, director of the Health Policy Program at the New America Foundation.
Amy Goodman, broadcast journalist for Democracy Now, columnist and author.
Juan Gonzalez, investigative journalist for Democracy Now and former columnist for the New York Daily News

Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez hosted a debate on health care reform, which starred Dr. David Himmelstein and Len Nichols. Both Nichols and Himmelstein believe that there needs to be major reform in the U.S. health care system, but Himmelstein wants to see a National Health Program (or single-payer system), whereas Nichols believes that the best fit is government regulation in the current system. The majority of America feels that there needs to be health care reform, but the conflicting methods of how it should be done are exemplified by the Himmelstein and Nichols debate.

Audience and Agenda:
Democracy Now is an independent news program that has a viewership of 277,000 people. The news program is unique because it receives neither corporate nor government funding. Democracy Now has received numerous awards for their journalism including: Pinnacle Award for American Women in Radio & Television, and the George Polk Award. Democracy Now scheduled this debate in timely fashion because it was just days after Obama’s congressional address where he spoke of the imminent need for health care reform. Himmelstein has a bias toward single-payer insurance because he is the co-founder of PNHP, whereas Nichols, the director of the Health Policy Program at the New America Foundation, is speaking on behalf of the entire non-profit organization. However, Himmelstein has a bit more credibility than Nichols because he is an actual doctor and Nichols is not.

Usefulness:
This debate highlights the separate reform ideologies that are currently encircling the health care industry. Himmelstein wants to see a single-payer system implemented in the U.S. But Nichols would rather see a government-regulated private system that would cover everyone. In the debate they discuss the Massachusetts health care system because many see their system as a microcosm for what the Obama administration wants to do; the system keeps the insurance companies intact and health care is available to all residents of the state. Himmelstein is a physician in Massachusetts but he feels that the system has too many holes; many people still cannot afford care due to the high prices of deductibles and co-payments. Nichols believes that a single-payer system is too far of an ideological jump for the American people because they are wary of government control and corruption. But Himmelstein feels that a single-payer system is the best way to create an efficient system that eliminates our current health care deficencies. Nichols believes that the government needs to change the rules of the game so that it will insure everyone, but Himmelstein argues that we need to adopt a new game because the current one is rigged.

Works cited:
Democracy Now
Physicians for a National Health Program
New America Foundation
Google Alerts
wikipedia.org
quantcast.com

For other Journalistic sources check out…
29) Kathleen Sebelius
15) Frontline Explores the Health Care Systems in Five other Countries
9) Obama signs first piece of health care legislation as President
7) Michael Moore on CNN
5) Warning: Set Reasonable Goals
3) A New Direction
2) In Obama’s own Words
1) Luke Mitchell on Democracy Now

Summary: A Health Affairs article that argues that the Netherlands health care system is a good model for U.S. reform. The belief is that the transition to a system such as the Netherlands’ would be much less strenuous than a switch to a single-payer system.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Academic Research

What is it? An academic journal regarding health policy thought and research.
Publication Information: June 2008
Author: Wynand Van de Ven and Frederik Schut
Location: http://0-web.ebscohost.com.janus.uoregon.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=108&sid=5f3120a5-c32c-42b1-8982-1ae550d4df69%40sessionmgr102
Accessed: Feb. 26, 2009

Support:
Health Affairs, Academic Journal
R.B. Scotton, wrote “National Health Insurance in Australia: New Concepts and New Applications.”
J.K. Helderman, wrote “Market-Oriented Health Care Reforms and Policy Learning in the Netherlands.”
A.C. Enthoven, wrote “Consumer-Choice Health Plan: A National-Health-Insurance Proposal Based on Regulated Competition in the Private Sector.”
The Health Affairs academic journal is a peer-reviewed publication that writes on health policy and research. Health Affairs puts out a bi-monthly publication, and the authors usually consist of top scholars, policymakers, and health care industry leaders. The journal was first published in 1981, and is now considered well-respected in the medical community. R.B. Scotton, J.K. Helderman, and A.C. Enthoven are three authors that are referenced in this particular article.

Audience and Agenda:
The Health Affairs academic journal has over 10,000 subscribers that read throughout the world. The journal’s website, healthaffairs.org, carries an audience of approximately 22,000 people. The vast majority of viewers work in the health care field, or carry great interest in its news and operations. Health Affairs is published and copyrighted by Project HOPE, which is an organization that helps provide health care to impoverished areas.

Usefulness:
The Netherlands health care system went through three large reforms between 1940 and 2000: universal coverage, cost-containment through the government, and efficiency through managed competition. Single-payer systems completely eliminate insurance companies, but the Netherlands system leaves insurance companies intact on the condition that they follow government regulations. Government regulations force the insurance companies force to accept citizens regardless of “pre-existing conditions.” In the Netherlands there is a federal mandate that everyone must purchase insurance – children are covered from birth until they are 18 – which is based off of their income, and the government pays for insurance  for the poor. The Netherlands may not have the “best” system, but many say that it would be a much easier transition-template for the U.S. to follow (compared to that of a single-payer system). However, the article does acknowledge that even though there is a mandate that all citizens purchase insurance, 1.5% of the population still does not purchase it; so they are penalized by paying high medical costs when they go to receive health care. It’s worth noting that the World Health Organization currently ranks the Netherlands health care system 17th overall in the world.

Works cited:
Google Scholar
Health Affairs – healthaffairs.org
Project HOPE – projhope.org
wikipedia.org
quantcast.com
EBSCOhost

For other Academic Research posts, check out…
16) National Health Insurance
18) The Argument of Justice
22) Is Single-Payer Not the Answer?
30) Is Health Care Reform Just “Talk?”

Summary: University of Oregon Professor and Journalist Jon Palfreman discusses his views on health care reform and single-payer insurance. He breaks down the reform process into two main objectives: affordability and inclusion for all Americans.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Citizen. Stakeholder

What is it? In-person interview with Jon Palfreman
Publication Information: None
Author: None
Location: Eugene, OR
Accessed: Feb. 26, 2009

Support:
Jon Palfreman
Findings, opinions, and conclusions from his journalistic research on health care.

Audience and Agenda:
Professor Jon Palfreman is a journalist that has been researching the United States health care system over the past year. He has completed one documentary on health care that aired for Frontline, which is named “Sick Around The World.” Palfreman is a journalist who has won several prestigious awards including: an Emmy, Dupont, and Peabody Award. He is currently working on another documentary for Frontline, and it is also about the U.S. health care system.

Usefulness:
Professor Jon Palfreman believes that in the midst of health care reform in the U.S. there are two key objectives that need to be reached: we need to create a system where all Americans have insurance coverage, and the government must make it affordable for people. Our current system has 46 million people without insurance coverage, and those who do have health insurance are paying too large a percentage of their income for their coverage. While Palfreman does believe that the government needs to have control over prices to assure that health care is affordable, he does not think that a single-payer system is politically feasible in the U.S. because of the insurance giants; they will not leave quietly, and they will use financial persuasion to guarantee their survival. Palfreman sees the German or Swiss systems as much more practical templates for reform considering the political structure of the U.S. He believes that it less crucial to agree on the perfect system, and instead address one crucial question: will it work?

Works cited:
http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/faculty-staff/jonp
wikipedia.org
google.com

For other Interview posts check out…
28) Ramah Leith
27) Barbara Walter
23) Bob Templin

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Citizen. Stakeholder

What is it? Telephone interview
Publication Information: None
Author: None
Location: Eugene, OR
Accessed: Feb. 25, 2009

Support:
Robert Templin
Personal experience, and the stories of the Health Care industry.

Audience and Agenda:
Robert Templin has been a licensed pharmacist since 1977, and he has been working as a licensed pharmacist in the state of Oregon for the past 32 years. Templin was kind enough to allow me to interview him on a variety of issues including: health care reform, single-payer systems, government regulation, and preventative care. Templin currently works at Rite Aid Pharmacy in Portland Oregon.

Usefulness:
Robert Templin believes that there needs to be health care reform in this country. As a pharmacist he has seen a system that combines outrageous costs with the disclusion of countless people who are in need of pharmaceutical care. Templin agrees that there needs to be more government regulation of the health care system to include all Americans and that the government should create a system where patients have incentive to pursue preventative care. However, he does not like the idea of the government having sole control of the health care industry because he believes it will mean a lower level of care for all Americans, which would include long waits for procedures and a general moral hazard in the public. Although, Templin does say that a single-payer system would make pharmacy-life much easier because there would be government uniformity rather than the thousands of different billing systems that currently exist from insurance companies.

Works cited:
google.com

For other Interview posts check out…
28) Ramah Leith
27) Barbara Walter
24) Jon Palfreman

Summary: Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel published an article in the Hastings Center Report discussing the problems and complications of a single-payer insurance system.

Topic: Should the Obama administration attempt to  convert the United States to a single-payer health care system?
Category: Academic Research

What is it? Article in the Hastings Center Report
Publication Information: Jan. 2008
Author: Ezekiel J. Emanuel
Location: http://0-web.ebscohost.com.janus.uoregon.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=13&sid=8050d15c-97fb-47a5-901c-6ec623060dd9%40SRCSM1
Accessed: Feb. 24, 2009

Support:

Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel
The Hastings Center
British National Health Service
The New York Times
The Hastings Center is an independent, nonpartisan, and non-profit research institute, which was founded in 1969. The Hastings Center specializes in researching bioethics, and, on a bi-monthly basis, they print a “Hastings Center Report,” which is a collection of essays, columns and case-studies pertaining to bioethics. Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel uses an article from the New York Times and information from the British National Health Service to formulate his argument on why single-payer insurance is not the reform needed in the U.S.

Audience and Agenda:

Visitors of the Hastings Center’s website either work in the health care field, or have keen interest on the topic of bioethics. However, those who do follow the work of the Hastings Center and read the Hastings Center Report are able to further their education and awareness on ethical issues circulating the health care field. The Hastings Center is a non-profit research Institute and has over 200 contributors, which include physicians, attorneys, PhD’s and researchers. Dr. Emanuel is a NIH bioethicist, and is currently Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Usefulness:
Dr. Emanuel argues that a single-payer reform would not fix the health care problems in the U.S. and that it would be a safe-haven for fraud and abuse. He does concede that the system would assure health care coverage for every American, and would save money by cutting administrative costs, but still feels that the benefits of a single-payer system do not outweigh the costs of reform. Dr. Emanuel brings up fair arguments, but he focuses on the technical details of the single-payer system rather than the over-arching goal that it is trying to achieve. A single-payer system would create the potential for abuse and poor spending, but that is why the government would need to create a way to make it transparent; this would eliminate many of the technical difficulties that Dr. Emanuel presents. He also presents his argument in purely fiscal and political terms because most arguments fade when health care is viewed as a human right.

Works cited:
Academic Search Premier
Quantcast.com
wikipedia.org
New York Times
google.com
http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx

For other Academic Research posts, check out…
16) National Health Insurance
18) The Argument of Justice
25) The Netherlands Could be a Model for the U.S.
30) Is Health Care Reform Just “Talk?”