Healthcare

**Section II**
 * AP English Language and Composition**

**Question 1**

(Suggested time: reading time—15 minutes; writing time—40 minutes. This question counts as one-third of the total essay section score.)

The question requires you to integrate a variety of sources into a coherent, well-written essay. Refer to the sources to support your position; avoid mere paraphrase or summary. Your argument should be central; the sources should support you argument. Remember to attribute both direct and indirect citations.
 * Directions:** The following prompt is based on the accompanying eight sources.

Of the major industrial nations, the United States of America, does not offer its citizens enjoyment of benefits and the security that a universal comprehensive health care system brings. About 46 million people in America are uninsured. Although a small percentage of Americans are indifferent as to whether the Unites States has Universal Healthcare, it is a necessity to many a current hot button issue.
 * __INTRODUCTION__**

Read the following sources carefully. Then in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, take a position on whether or not universal healthcare should be integrated into the United States.
 * __ASSIGNMENT__**

Refer to the source as Source A, Source B, etc.; descriptions in parentheses are included for you convenience.

Source A (Graphs and Charts) Source B (Single-payer National Health Insurance) Source C (Messerli ) Source D (Froetschel) Source E (Wasserman) Source F (Porter) Source G (Chart)

**Source A** “Graphs and Charts about healthcare in America” Forums: Health, United States, Healthcare Copyright © 2011 Horizontal Verticals There is something wrong with the American Healthcare system. It costs far too much for far too little and universal healthcare coverage alone isn't going to fix this.

**Source B** “Single-Payer National Health Insurance” Physicians for a National Health Program http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46.3 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered. The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care….

**Source C** “Cons of Universal Healthcare” Messerli, Joe. "BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)." //BalancedPolitics.org//. 09 Nov. 2010. Web. 05 Jan. 2011. .

Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility**.** At first glance, it would appear universal health care would //increase// flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

**Source D** “A National Health-Care Plan Would Strengthen the U.S. Economy” Froetschel, Susan "Globalization Forces a **Health**-Check of U.S. Auto Industry," //YaleGlobal//, February 19, 2007. Copyright © 2007 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Reproduced by permission. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8785.

The U.S. auto industry is losing ground in the global economy, partly because of the lack of a low cost, universal health**-**care plan for American workers. Private health**-**care costs have destroyed the profitability of the U.S. automakers. Among top auto-producing nations, only the United States and China do not provide universal coverage. If the United States fails to address this problem and reduce the cost of health care for all Americans, it will risk destroying its industrial economy. Health care raises the price of each GM car by $1,500, complains CEO [chief executive officer] Rick Wagoner. That figure, bandied about by the media, is unsound for several reasons. The calculation overlooks government subsidies: Tax subsidies for employee-sponsored health-care coverage on active workers exceeded $200 billion in 2006, reports the US Internal Revenue Service. GM's own policy analysts divorce themselves from the figure because health-care costs per car vary, depending on which parts, from light bulbs to seat covers, are outsourced. With every plant closure, health care costs per car rise because US firms carry an extra burden of coverage for retired workers. To regain some competitive edge, the executives want autoworkers to accept cuts in health benefits or the Democratic majority in Congress to reduce health-care costs. Medical care has long served as a hot issue for Democrats, who express concern about the growing numbers of uninsured, now 15 percent of the US population. A shrinking majority of Americans, now 59 percent, hold employer-provided coverage. Voters demand more health care, so the issue appears intractable. In 1994, President Bill Clinton couldn't convince another Democratic-controlled Congress to consider a health-care reform package, proposed by a task force led by Hillary Clinton, then first lady, now senator for New York and a presidential candidate. The government picks up the health-care tab for the poor and elderly. Yet, US health care is a powerful industry that generates profits and donates funds to politicians who propose expanded services rather than painful cuts. Between 1998 and 2005, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries ranked first and second in lobbying expenditures, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Lobbies representing pharmaceutical and insurance industries, hospitals and health-care professionals combined spent more than $2 billion for the period.

**Source E** “Wasserman Political Cartoon” The Boston Globe

**Source F** Porter, S. "The Argument Against Universal Healthcare." //Free Articles Directory | Submit Articles - ArticlesBase.com//. 19 Feb. 2009. Web. 06 Jan. 2011. .

The idea of a nationalized healthcare system has been around for a long time, and like most other social ideas, it sounds good when you first hear it. Healthcare for everyone in the United States would be a dream come true for lots of families but the problems with universal healthcare far outweigh the benefits. Many countries have tried this and failed because of some basic ideas that aren’t even being considered. The Competition – or lack there of. One of the things that made this country great is the free market principle of competition. Doctors spend years in medical school to graduate and join the ranks of practicing MDs. When they do, they usually have huge debts to repay and big dreams of being successful, rich doctors. Competition creates winners and these doctors strive to be the best so they can make a name for themselves and ultimately make more money. In a universal healthcare system, the government decides what a doctor can charge and they all make the same amount. There is no longer a reason for a doctor to strive to be the best because there is no reward for doing so. This hinders medical advancement and makes everyone take the same sub-standard healthcare; it also greatly reduces the drive for people to become doctors at all. I understand that the need to help others should always come first, but that won’t pay off years of student loans and put food on the table. The Cost – somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 trillion per year. That makes the recent stimulus package from congress seem small by comparison. Large numbers like this tend to fall on deaf ears because no one really knows how much that is. To give you an idea, it’s $10,000 per year for every person living in this country. The reason healthcare costs have risen to where they are is because we have already begun moving toward socialized healthcare for several years now. It works like this: Medicare and Medicaid put about 20% of the country in a free healthcare program, but someone has to pay for it; so the other 80% see a rise in their healthcare costs. This causes more people from the 80% to lose their healthcare because they can no longer afford it and they join the other 20% who are getting it for free. Healthcare costs continue to rise for those who are paying for it as more and more people get it for free; but in the end, this money has to come from somewhere. The only way to fix this problem is to un-socialize the system and make healthcare affordable to more people. One company with a solution is Ameriplan Health. In this health program, doctors offer big discounts for all their services in exchange for payment from the patient… no insurance or big government to get in the way. The Government – can’t do anything efficiently. Every program that our government has taken over dies a slow death. They have ruined retirement with social security, and forced more people into poverty through welfare. This is the same group of people that pay $5,000 for a toilet seat. Most of the people on capital hill have never had to worry about healthcare and have no idea how it works. They are interested in your vote; and if universal healthcare sounds good to you, they will be happy to do it regardless of right or wrong. Good healthcare is not a right… it’s a privilege that should be worked for and cherished, not handed out.

**Source G** “Chart of Total Health Care Spending” http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/health_care/204694/exec_1.htm
 * Figure 1:**
 * Chart of Total Health Care Spending**
 * Hospital Care || 31% ||
 * Physician & Clinical Services || 22% ||
 * Prescription Drugs || 11% ||
 * Other Spending || 36% ||