Kadrich 1
Ethan Kadrich
Professor Jessica Walker
English 1302-229
27 March 2024
Public and private healthcare
The two known medical systems, often public and private healthcare, are commonly used
worldwide. These systems comprise the healthcare system, which has different methods,
procedures, and controls. What separates the two is immense, which is not commonly known to
most of the US other than the intense experience with private healthcare. When people think of
public healthcare, they only hear how long it takes, the high taxes, and that the government is in
control instead of the people. However, what the majority of people do not need to learn is that
public healthcare is very beneficial to people in a variety of ways than the cost of having it.
Comparing private to public health has its pros and cons, but the pros with public health
outweighs private. It should be acknowledged in the US, but most of the information often does
not need to be known or taught. This will be about facts and experiences expressing that public
healthcare should be implemented in the US.
The greatest thing about public healthcare is its ability to have free services at no cost to its
citizens, unlike private healthcare. In an economic sense, the taxes will be raised for citizens,
which no one likes. However, without private healthcare, there is no need to pay for medical
insurance, which is most individuals' most significant money contribution. Without the need for
medical insurance, most of the money can be saved instead of constantly poured to reduce the
cost of medicine, procedures, appointments, and various uses of the insurance. There are a
variety of countries known for the best healthcare, often public healthcare, making them the top
ten worldwide. Having that system, residents often experienced (Saad et al.)" insurance
discrimination and access to specific care," meaning even with insurance, it will not always
cover everything. Public healthcare should be introduced slowly since most private healthcare
and insurance businesses will not like it at all. Once people realize the benefit of not paying for
expensive medications, insurance, and a slight tax, it is an immense change for everyone in the
US. Having to pay less is something anyone would want to have, especially for a medication that
is easily manufactured and mass-produced with ease. At least, there would be the benefit for the
people to have access without limitations and costs.
Acquiring medication is a need for a variety of people with medical needs, but to receive the
medication is immensely expensive. The reasoning behind this is that most private companies
control medical production, an example of which is insulin. Every known medication commonly
used, not from the store shelf, is quickly produced but set at a high price due to the companies
that manufacture them. With public healthcare, the government is the one who can control the
prices, such as the Canadian government, whose prices of medication are meager compared to
the prices in the US. Public healthcare would benefit most citizens by acquiring medicine at a
cheaper price without the need for insurance. Even insurance will only sometimes be needed due
to the free services provided by clinics and hospitals. More money would be saved without the
Kadrich 2
need for all the requirements private healthcare has to meet, such as making products and
services cheap. They have access to equipment that is often out of reach or is not available in
certain towns. Some patients travel from city to city for equipment and procedures deemed cheap
or expensive. That is a significant issue for people across every state; not every hospital has the
equipment for specific issues. With the government supplying medical equipment and medicine,
every city in every state has the opportunity for immense health that was never given to them
initially.
It is a fact that most people would disagree with the medical system due to the increase in taxes
and the duration of receiving an appointment. It will be a significant change that affects everyone
in various ways that are believed to be worrying; however, when it realizes that it has two
adverse effects outweighed by the benefits, The expected benefits are cheap medication that
anyone can acquire without insurance and free service. The long-term benefit, in an economical
way, is that more money will be saved instead of going into insurance to ensure every medical
acquisition is cheap. Cutting the cost of procedures, medications, or help will positively affect
individuals' money. It is more beneficial than the private healthcare system, which is expensive
for no apparent reason despite a large business being able to mass produce quickly. Depending
on the country, public healthcare might be challenging, such as Brazil, which relies on that
system. Countries that attempt public healthcare and have a low percentage of mostly
procedures, patient wellness, and a variety of reasons to make it wrong are due to their economy
and technology. It is supported by Jason Andrew et al.'s article that "low and middle-income
countries with private healthcare deliver better performance than public delivery," mainly
because private has more business than public. The disadvantages depend on the economy and
technology available, which will not make it work properly as it should. Even Brazil, where
authors Alfredo et al. analyzed the performance of the two systems, says, "Public health's
"survival rate is at least 81% while private is 69% for cancer".
Another example would be the Obama care plan, which was supposed to introduce public
healthcare to the US, but it was unprofessionally presented. It is something that most of the
population was ready for since only some were educated about the system due to being raised
with insurance companies and private clinics. If it had been appropriately introduced, then the
way Obama should not have, it would have been a different story. Regardless of the way it was
introduced, it is a system that is not taught in the US, where there are pros and cons, just like the
private health system has. There are even many companies that are commonly visited, and if they
were to shut down or take any action, it would hurt the people and government. Public healthcare
should be added to the US properly, and education should be given to the people so it would not
be seen as a terrible system.
In the end, the system itself is highly beneficial, and like every other system, there is a cost for
having reliable healthcare. With it, the many benefits for every known citizen will have the
benefits, help, and opportunities that were considered unaffordable will be available to them.
What is known about public healthcare is that it often has minor adverse effects compared to the
benefits that are given. What public healthcare has will always be a helpful system compared to
health, a system focused on giving people the ability to receive whatever their needs are.
Financially, it would save money for citizens, allowing them to buy medication at a reasonable
Kadrich 3
price and without the need to pay for an appointment or expensive procedures. It goes on to
patient opinion; if applied to the US, it can be considered the most outstanding healthcare system
in other countries since other countries have public healthcare and are regarded as the top ten
most excellent healthcare in the world, with the US below that. It will be something of great
benefit for everyone slowly as it is introduced at a pace that will help everyone understand that it
will not affect them negatively. With the system integrated into the US, it could be considered
the number one with the services provided to everyone a healthier person.
Work cited
Andrews, J., Kishore, S., Panjabi, R., & et al (2021). Comparative performance of private and
public healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. PLoS
medicine. [Link]
Kaabi, S., & Singh, R. (2022). Non-Profit organisations, private health insurance, public health
insurance, Universal Healthcare System. JCDR.
[Link]
709x&year=2022&month=August&vol0ume=16&issue=8&page=IR01-IR08&id=16742
Long-Term Lifestyle Habits and Quality of Life after Roux-in-Y Gastric Bypa...: EBSCOhost
Melendez-Araújo, M. S., do Carmo, Et al (2023, August 1). Long-term lifestyle habits and
quality of life after roux-in-Y gastric bypass in Brazilian public versus private healthcare
systems: Beyond weight loss. MDPI. [Link]
4601/20/15/6494?type=check_update&version=2
Owusu‐Frimpong, N., Nwankwo, S., & Dason, B. (2010, April 6). Measuring service quality and
patient satisfaction with access to public and private healthcare delivery. International
Journal of Public Sector Management.
[Link]
Pain as the fifth vital sign—A comparison between public and private healthcare systems | PLOS
ONE Pozza, D. H., Azevedo, L. F., & Lopes, J. M. C. (2021a). Pain as the fifth vital sign-A
comparison between public and private healthcare systems. PLOS ONE.
[Link]
Frontiers | Breast cancer survival and the health system in Brazil: an analysis of public and
private healthcare ([Link]) Ferreira, A. de S. S., Cintra, et al. (2023, May 1). Breast
cancer survival and the Health System in Brazil: An analysis of public and private
healthcare. Frontiers. [Link]
