HLT 205 Topic 1 DQ 1 compare US health system guide
An HLT 205 Week 1 discussion post comparing and contrasting the U.S. health care system with the system of another country, identifying what similarities and differences exist and citing references to support the answer.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 13, 2026
What is HLT 205 Topic 1 Discussion 1 actually comparing?
The prompt is four lines long and almost every post it produces makes the same mistake, which is to compare countries rather than systems. A post that reports that one country spends more per person, has fewer hospital beds, and reports a lower life expectancy has produced a table, not a comparison. What a health systems course wants is an account of how each country decides who is covered, who pays, who delivers care, and who is allowed to say no — and then an explanation of why the numbers came out the way they did. The figures are the evidence, not the argument. Decide before you write which structural features you are going to compare, hold both countries to the same list, and the differences you report will have a cause attached to them rather than sitting on the page as raw contrast. The list is the assignment; the countries are just where you find it.
Choosing the comparator is the most consequential decision in the assignment and it is worth two minutes of thought. Health systems in wealthy countries fall into a small number of financing families: tax-funded national health services, social insurance built on mandatory sickness funds, national health insurance that pays private providers from a single public fund, and predominantly private insurance with public programmes for particular groups. The United States is the outlier because it runs all four at once for different populations. Pick a country that sits cleanly in one of the other families and your comparison gains an explanatory spine immediately. Pick another mixed system and you will spend the post untangling two sets of exceptions. Say in your opening sentence which family your chosen country belongs to, because that single fact predicts most of what follows. Naming the family also gives your peers a shorthand they can argue with, which is what a first-week discussion is for.
The similarities half of the prompt is where the marks quietly sit, and it is the half most posts skip. Differences are easy to find and everyone will find the same ones. Similarities take more thought: both systems are dominated by chronic disease rather than acute illness, both face an ageing population and a shrinking ratio of workers to retirees, both rely on the same evidence base and the same clinical guidelines, both train clinicians to broadly comparable standards, and both are wrestling with workforce shortages, digital record adoption, and pharmaceutical prices. If your post contains four differences and no similarities, you have answered half of a two-part question. Name at least two genuine similarities and say why they arise despite the structural differences you just described. A useful test: would the similarity still hold if the two countries swapped financing models? If so, you have found a structural pressure rather than a coincidence.
Cited references are required, and the way you use numbers decides whether the post reads as informed or as assembled. Every figure needs a year and a source, because health expenditure and coverage statistics move and because a 2016 percentage quoted in 2026 is simply wrong. Prefer sources that publish comparable cross-national data rather than a single country's own reporting, since definitions of a hospital bed, a physician visit, and even a health expenditure differ between national statistical agencies. When you cite a percentage, say what it is a percentage of. When you cite a ranking, say what was ranked and by whom. Markers reading twenty posts will notice the one that treats its numbers as claims requiring support rather than as decoration. It is also the cheapest way to avoid the commonest factual error here: quoting an uninsured rate from a decade whose policy environment no longer exists, then building an argument on it.
Where the post becomes interesting is in the trade-offs, and this is what separates a strong discussion contribution from a competent summary. No system is better on every dimension, and the honest comparison shows a country buying one thing with another. Universal coverage financed through taxation buys equity of access and pays for it with queues for elective procedures and constrained provider choice. A market with multiple private payers buys capacity, choice and speed of access to specialists, and pays for it with administrative cost, uneven coverage and financial risk for households. Naming a trade-off in both directions is the single most persuasive move available in this assignment, because it demonstrates that you are analysing systems rather than defending one. Write each trade-off as a single sentence with a semicolon in the middle, and the analytical work becomes visible at a glance rather than buried in description.
Finish with a position rather than a balance sheet, since a discussion post exists to give classmates something to answer. State which feature of the comparator system you would import into the United States and, more usefully, why it might not transfer. Financing arrangements travel badly: they depend on the tax base, on the political settlement that created them, on the size and structure of the provider market, and on what the population already regards as normal. That last point is the one your peers will want to argue with, which is exactly what a first-week discussion is for. Keep the post at a length that lets each structural feature get a full sentence, and make sure your references appear in the text rather than only in the list. A post that ends on an unresolved question about transferability will draw more substantive replies than one that ends on a recommendation, because a recommendation invites agreement and a question invites argument.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Classify a national health system by its financing family rather than by its outcomes.
- 02Compare two systems on a fixed list of structural features.
- 03Identify genuine similarities between systems that differ structurally.
- 04Use cross-national statistics with a source and a year attached.
- 05State a trade-off in both directions rather than ranking the systems.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! Name: Discussion Rubric Grid View List View Excellent 90–100 Good 80–89 Fair 70–79 Poor 0–69 Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Posting: Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. First Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Total Points: 100 Name: Discussion Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A post comparing and contrasting the U.S. health care system with that of another country.
- 02An account of what similarities exist between the two systems.
- 03An account of what differences exist between the two systems.
- 04References cited to support the answer.
Comparing the two systems feature by feature
Name the comparator and its financing family
Open by identifying the country and whether it runs a tax-funded service, social insurance, single-payer national insurance, or a mixed model.
Coverage and eligibility
Who is covered, how they become covered, and who falls outside in each system.
Financing and payment
Where the money comes from, who holds the risk, and how providers are paid in each system.
Delivery and access
Public or private ownership, the role of primary care as a gatekeeper, and how a patient reaches a specialist.
The similarities
At least two structural pressures both systems share, with an explanation of why they arise despite different designs.
Trade-offs in both directions
State what each system buys and what it gives up to buy it.
One transferable feature
Name a feature worth importing and the reason it might not survive the transfer.
Where the cross-national health data lives
Recommended databases
- Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
- Commonwealth Fund international surveys
- WHO Global Health Observatory
- CMS national health expenditure data
Search sequence
- 1.Choose the comparator country first, then search for a description of its financing model before looking at any statistics.
- 2.Pull comparable cross-national figures from a single source so the definitions match across countries.
- 3.Check U.S. expenditure and coverage figures against the federal source rather than a secondary summary.
- 4.Search for a recent international comparison report to find the trade-offs already documented.
- 5.Record the year attached to every figure as you collect it, not afterwards.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Health Care by Country 2024 Report
The Commonwealth Fund · 2024
Cross-national comparison of health system performance across access, equity, administrative efficiency and outcomes; the source for trade-off claims.
- 02
Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
Peterson Center on Healthcare and KFF · 2025
Comparable spending, coverage and utilisation charts for the U.S. against peer nations; use for any figure that needs a matched definition.
- 03
National Health Expenditure Data
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services · 2025
The federal source for U.S. spending totals and shares; cite this rather than a secondary summary when quoting U.S. figures.
- 04
Global Health Observatory
World Health Organization · 2025
Country profiles and health indicators for the comparator nation, with definitions stated so the measures can be matched.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Comparing statistics between two countries instead of comparing how the two systems are built.
- Choosing a comparator that is also a mixed system, which removes the explanatory contrast.
- Answering only the differences half and leaving the similarities unaddressed.
- Quoting expenditure or coverage figures without a year or a source.
- Ranking the two systems instead of naming what each one trades away.
- Treating a policy feature as portable without asking what made it possible where it exists.
Submission checklist
- The comparator country is named in the first sentence along with its financing family.
- The same list of structural features is applied to both systems.
- At least two genuine similarities are given, with a reason for each.
- Every statistic carries a year and a cited source.
- A trade-off is stated in both directions rather than a verdict.
- One transferable feature is named along with a reason it may not transfer.
- References appear as in-text citations, not only in a list at the end.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.