For health insurance, the United States has taken
the road less traveled. The United States is the only rich country without
universal health insurance. People in the United States spend the most, rely
heavily on the private sector, and obtain care from the world’s most complicated
delivery system. While some supporters have expressed satisfaction, if not
pride, in these remarkable qualities, others contend that the United States
faces unique limitations in reforming health care. In her
exceptional book,Parting at the Crossroads, Antonia Maioni compares the
formation of the U.S. and Canadian health-care systems for the years 1930—1960.
The United States and Canada are often considered the most similar of Western
democracies. They share a common border, are wealthy, and have federal
government. Their trade unions are only moderately powerful, and their
populations are diverse and young. Nevertheless, their heath-insurance systems
are nearly opposite. The United States relies on a mix of government
plans. Targeted to the elderly and indigent, and employment based plans,
which the government indirectly supports, Canada offers public health insurance
to all qualified resident, with the private sector providing supplementary
services in some provinces. Labor organizations became strong
advocates for health-insurance reform in both countries. Their impact partially
depended on political institutions and how other actors,
particularly organized medicine, wielded them. Canada’s governmental and
electoral systems allowed labor to cooperate with a social democratic party in
the Saskatchewan province, which established a universal program. The
Saskatchewan program demonstrated universal insurance feasibility, spurring the
dominant Liberals to introduce a national universal program. In contrast,
the U. S. electoral system effectively precluded third-party formation,
forcing organized labor to dilute its health-insurance goals because it was one
of many interests represented by the Democratic Party. Maioni
suggests that economic vitality is important for the future of both countries’
systems, but the prognosis is uncertain. Despite recent concerns about the
Canadian government’s budgetary health, Maioni contends that widespread support
protects universal insurance. Conversely, Maioni seems pessimistic
about options for U.S. universal health insurance. Despite economic buoyancy,
dissension will likely prevent reforms. Although a devastating econmnic
downturn would make health finance difficult in either country, the U.S. system
seems especially vulnerable. Employment-based insurance and Medicare both rely
on labor market attachment. High, chronic unemployment could result
in coverage loss and financial difficulties for employer insurance and Medicare,
swelling the uninsured pool. Such a crisis could provide an opening for
universal health insurance. In any case, whether the United States relies on the
public or private sector, escalating health expenditures figure into budget of
government, corporations, and families, the U. S.
health care system’s future may depend on Americans"
willingness to devote more of their national income to health care. The passage is most likely to be______.
A. a summary of a government-sponsored program in health policy study
B. a review of a book in health-care system study
C. a survey of the influence of economic policies on the health-care
system
D. a critical commentary on the U.S. health-care system