The advantage of the national and public health care is full coverage of all populations improved quality of life. Today, in the USA, the opinion polls suggest that a growing majority of Americans favor early action to provide insurance coverage for the entire population, although they express considerable ambivalence about assuming any significant additional tax liabilities to pay for it. The elderly and the population approaching retirement are concerned that Medicare does not offer extended nursing home coverage. If either national coverage or long-term care, or both, were easy to finance and implement, their enactment along with a program aimed at moderating total health care expenditures would elicit broad public support.(Morris et al 23). However, the relative indifference of the public thus far to the remorseless increase in health care expenditures, the erosion in benefits that many will face as part of a major reform effort, and the difficult choices that will have to be made among alternative methods to restrain total outlays suggest that it may be preferable, at least for the time being, to defer the issue of long-term care (Kotlikoff, 22).
Current healthcare system involves different types of medical institutions and healthcare providers. The core of the system is private healthcare. Private medical services are a good solution they are able to invest in new technology and provide patients with high quality services. The private healthcare helps the American government to reveal and test chronic diseases at early stages of development. Research so far suggests that the internal market for health has not significantly expanded the choices available to patients and doctors. Inevitably, with significant purchasing power in the hands of general practices, there has been a shift in power away from consultants and toward fund-holders. Waiting times for treatment are reduced, for example, because a consultant has spent a day a week in the fund-holder's own clinic, or the provider has extended its facilities. In addition, laboratory testing has improved by competition from private services that have generally been able to exercise more influence over hospital services and medical professionals (Naidoo and Wills 76).
In terms of the current health care system, the nation has never faced up to the issue of providing all members of the society with insurance coverage that would ensure them access, or at least remove the financial barriers in seeking access, to essential health care. Although the issue has gained increasing visibility, the United States has been slow to undertake such a commitment. There is, however, another side to the coin: Americans have at the same time refrained from decisions that would explicitly impose rationing, such as prevails in many other advanced countries, where age and similar criteria arbitrarily limit the availability of high-cost medical interventions (Kotlikoff 71). Arguably, such avoidance is a failure, not an achievement, since distributive justice and equity might be better served by a formal system of rationing. However, many patients who would have been refused critical services under a formal rationing system have benefited from life-prolonging treatment under the more haphazard arrangements that continue to prevail in the United States (Porter and Teisberg, 21).
The public or universal healthcare would help the American state to cover all social classes in spite of their income and insurance. The public healthcare will help the USA to improve quality of life and treat chronic diseases at early stages. This incentive to attract more customers has no doubt enabled some hospitals to do more work than others. It has not entirely resolved the problem of the efficiency trap. In this case, even the most efficient hospitals with the greatest income will face the prospect of exhausting their revenue before the end of the financial year because the money available to purchasers remains limited. However, private fee paying care may be provided in hospitals. The other side of the coin reflects the mounting claims for payment, submitted primarily by physicians and hospitals that have operated under few market or other constraints to control the volume of services that they provide even while continuously striving to improve the quality of care that they offer (Naidoo and Wills 61).
In a publicly-oriented system, patient power can improve quality and efficiency of healthcare intended to enable the parties to agree on matters of quality, quantity, and cost. Common to ordinary business contracts between commercial parties. Parties (patients and healthcare institutions) may have to make compromises between competing objectives. Perhaps the quantity of a particular service ought to be reduced to expand facilities elsewhere; or prices ought to be reduced to attract more custom. Similarly, there is the need to balance administrative and transaction costs (the costs of setting up, operating, and monitoring the service) with the money devoted to the services themselves. Clearly, the healthcare contracts will force the parties to be explicit about the medical services which they wish to provide and, by implication, those which they do not. In this respect, they make more visible than ever before the decisions and issues made about which patients should be treated when demand for health care exceeds the medical resources available (Raffel and Barsikiewicz 28).
The public healthcare will depend upon judgment and value which are placed on theory. The reverse policy, of prosecutions in prosperity arid relaxation in depression, would be little better; for the downswing in the absence of an antitrust policy creates its own rigidities and monopolistic restrictions. Hence such a policy must be carried on continually if it is to attempt to smooth the cycle. For the moment, no precise formula exists by which the allotment can be made and the process allows for reference to past referral patterns, mortality and morbidity statistics, and a good deal of hard bargaining. The national health care suggests that when consumers are forced to rely on out-of-pocket disbursements to pay in whole or in part for a variety of products and services, low-cost as well as luxury items, the demand for these items declines. In the arena of health care, obvious examples are the virtual disappearance of private accommodations in hospitals (the few single rooms that remain are reserved for physician-prescribed situations) and similarly, duty nursing, the low frequency of cosmetic surgery and the underutilization of dental care. This eases to some degree the pressure on governmental and insurance payments (Kotlikoff 82). There is disagreement on the role that out-of-pocket payments should play in determining the demand for health care services.
Given the difficulties of designing and implementing an effective mechanism for budgetary constraint in the health care sector, it would appear judicious to allow households to supplement the funds provided by government and insurance (Kotlikoff, 2007). As a result, psychological, behavioral, and environmental conditions that becomes associated with health self-administration come to elicit the same biological actions of nicotine itself. The major psychological phenomena that become associated with health self-administration operate through classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and paired associations. Thus, changing the behavior eventually changes the preferences (not the reverse). Whether this occurs with fat preferences is unclear. Other factors that influence intake include the social environment, the foods available, and their prices. People eat more when in the company of others, and will model the consumption of their peers (Armstrong 43).
In sum, the universal healthcare will help the USA to improve quality of life and treat chronic diseases at early stages. The public healthcare will have a great impact on healthcare system and medical professionals. Health issues are influenced by different economic and social factors of the community. The inconsistent relation between emotional stress and decisions to seek health care could reflect two sets of factors: inadequate conceptual analysis of the stress-decision process and methodological deficits contingent upon them. Public healthcare will benefit both the state and individual citizens who will have free access to medical services around the country.