1
Bismarck or Beveridge Systems
Student's Name
Department, University
Course Code: Name of Course
Instructor
Due Date
2
Bismarck or Beveridge Systems
Beveridge System will be the best choice if Americans choose between it and the
Bismark System. The Beveridge model comprises a nationalized medical care that can be traced
back to the United Kingdom in the 1940s. During that period, Europe was striving to bounce
back from the damages of the Second World War, mainly with support from the Marshall Plan
(Bhattacharya et al., 2018). However, the new administration led by Prime Minister Clement
Atlee recognized and utilized economist William Beveridge's plan to transform society based on
shared sacrifice and the concept of harmony between fellow citizens (Bhattacharya et al., 2018).
The UK introduced a new health care system based on three key elements, including free care,
public health care provision, and universal, single-payer insurance.
Firstly, Americans could benefit massively from universal, single-payer insurance. They
could all get insurance coverage automatically via the government. Besides, the insurance is
funded mainly through taxes instead of premiums, ensuring individuals do not incur huge
expenses enrolling for it. The biggest problem with the current U.S. health care system is costly
premiums. Currently, Americans spend approximately 3.4 trillion annually in health care, but
they do not get the quality services they expect (Bloom, 2019). Data from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) shows that an average of Americans incurred $9596 in
medical expenses in 2012, a massive increase from $7700 in 2007 (Bloom, 2019). In 1960,
Americans spent approximately $146 on health care, and in 2016, the cost was $10,345 (Bloom,
2019). The problem is attributed to the multiple-payer system comprised of Medicare, publicly
subsidized private payers, socialized medicine, and self-pay (Donnelly et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, with universal, single-payer insurance, the rates can be identical for all Americans,
3
guaranteeing standard medical care for everyone regardless of individual or family income
levels.
Public health care provision would also be beneficial in the U.S. as the government
would be responsible for running clinics and hospitals and hiring nurses, physicians, and health
care managers. The government will determine where and when health care institutions will be
established or expanded. It also decides the number of specialists serving in each hospital
(Bhattacharya et al., 2018). That way, health care professionals will not have absolute power,
which they often misuse, demanding more pay and focusing on financial gains rather than
improving care.
Free care would also help several economically challenged Americans. Ensuring that
such people get quality care for free or at a small cost is vital in helping build a healthy society.
Poverty is a significant barrier to standard care in the U.S. People who cannot afford expensive
premiums do not get medical attention in private or public hospitals. For example, I had a friend
who was denied a necessary surgery because he could not afford it. His family was poor, and
they could not raise the required amount of money within the given duration. Therefore, middle
and low-income earners would appreciate free care.
Nevertheless, the Beveridge System would not be fully welcomed by healthcare suppliers
in the U.S. By doing so means accepting a significant cut in their earnings and profits. They
treasure the existing system because it makes them feel powerful. The Americans who should be
getting all the benefits of health care upon paying vast amounts of money for it feel inferior. It is
early time Americans seek absolute change to amend their health care system.
4
References
Bhattacharya, J., Hyde, T., & Tu, P. (2018). Health Economics. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bloom,@E. (2019, October 14).@Here's how much the average American spends on health care.
CNBC.@https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-
spends-on-health-care.html
Donnelly, P. D., Erwin, P. C., Fox, D. M., & Grogan, C. (2019). Single-Payer, Multiple-Payer,
and State-Based Financing of Health Care: Introduction to the Special Section.@American
Journal of Public Health,@109(11), 1482–1483.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305353
