Advertisement
An overwhelming ninety-three percent of respondents agree with the claimthat the nation needs an important reform of its healthcare system. Among thespecialized doctors (cardiologists, oncologists, internal medicine), 52% go sofar as to declare that they are in total agreement with that statement.Looking at political affiliation, among the respondents who recognizethemselves as Democrats, up to 61% are in total agreement with a need forimportant reform, while the majority of the Republicans (57%) agree orsomewhat agree with it.
Advertisement
While Canada, virtually all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea have adoptedpublicly-sponsored and regulated healthcare, the United States is the onlywealthy, industrialized nation that has not implemented comprehensivecoverage. Universal healthcare is defined as medical coverage extended to allcitizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a state or a country. Withhealthcare costs today representing 16% of U.S. GDP (four times the Defensebudget), and projected to reach 19.5% within ten years, universal healthcarecoverage has become an increasingly hot topic in the political arena.
The three front-runners of the presidential campaign took differentpositions on this subject, with ex-candidate Sen. Clinton vowing to make it arequirement that everyone participate in a universal health care plan. "We'regoing to have universal health care when I'm President," Sen. Obama promisingthat, "The time has come for universal, affordable health care in America,"and Sen. McCain declaring that government's role in health care should belimited to kick-starting a competitive marketplace so that people can buytheir own insurance.
Should the U.S. create a national plan? More than half of the respondentsfelt so, but with options to purchase additional coverage and higher benefitsprivately. A minority of respondents (28%) would prefer to preserve existingcoverage plans and extend benefits to those that are currently withoutcoverage. Only 5% of the interviewed healthcare professionals would like tosee no changes in the current system.
At least three-fourths of the respondents agree that both children andelders who are citizens should receive government-subsidized coverage, butonly one-third then agree that elders who are residents should receive it.Respondents from all political backgrounds (Democrat, Republican orIndependent) mostly agree with coverage for citizens. However self-reportedDemocrats are almost two to three times more likely as Republicans to endorsegovernment-subsidized coverage for residents, even when it pertains tochildren.
If a national plan were offered, healthcare professionals would like it tobe flexible, and 62% of the respondents declared that individuals should beable to opt out. "For those patients who can afford a higher private plan,they should be able to opt out, but everyone should have proof of insurance,"adds an oncologist from Sacramento, CA. On the subject of how this plan shouldbe funded, a majority (61%) of respondents from the Democratic side wouldprefer financing by taxes, as opposed to Republicans, who would prefer anemployer-plus employee or employee-only funding.
Medimix International also asked the healthcare professionals what wouldbe the main area of concern if a universal coverage plan were adopted. Of theRepublican camp, 69% of the healthcare professionals shared concerns about toomuch government control and high taxes, while the Democrats were mainlyconcer
