universal healthcare argumentative essay

Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons

Every citizen of every country in the world should be provided with free and high-quality medical services. Health care is a fundamental need for every human, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status.

Universal health care is the provision of healthcare services by a government to all its citizens (insurancespecialists.com). This means each citizen can access medical services of standard quality. In the United States, about 25% of its citizens are provided with healthcare funded by the government. These citizens mainly comprise the elderly, the armed forces personnel, and the poor (insurancespecialists.com).

Introduction

Thesis statement.

• Universal Healthcare Pros
• Universal Healthcare Cons

Works Cited

In Russia, Canada, and some South American and European countries, the governments provide universal healthcare programs to all citizens. In the United States, the segments of society which do not receive health care services provided by the government usually pay for their health care coverage. This has emerged as a challenge, especially for middle-class citizens. Therefore, the universal health care provision in the United States is debatable: some support it, and some oppose it. This assignment is a discussion of the topic. It starts with a thesis statement, then discusses the advantages of universal health care provision, its disadvantages, and a conclusion, which restates the thesis and the argument behind it.

The government of the United States of America should provide universal health care services to its citizens because health care is a basic necessity to every citizen, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status.

Universal Healthcare Provision Pros

The provision of universal health care services would ensure that doctors and all medical practitioners focus their attention only on treating the patients, unlike in the current system, where doctors and medical practitioners sped a lot of time pursuing issues of health care insurance for their patients, which is sometimes associated with malpractice and violation of medical ethics especially in cases where the patient is unable to adequately pay for his or her health care bills (balancedpolitics.org).

The provision of universal health care services would also make health care service provision in the United States more efficient and effective. In the current system in which each citizen pays for his or her health care, there is a lot of inefficiency, brought about by the bureaucratic nature of the public health care sector (balancedpolitics.org).

Universal health care would also promote preventive health care, which is crucial in reducing deaths as well as illness deterioration. The current health care system in the United States is prohibitive of preventive health care, which makes many citizens to wait until their illness reach critical conditions due to the high costs of going for general medical check-ups. The cost of treating patients with advanced illnesses is not only expensive to the patients and the government but also leads to deaths which are preventable (balancedpolitics.org).

The provision of universal health care services would be a worthy undertaking, especially due to the increased number of uninsured citizens, which currently stands at about 45 million (balancedpolitics.org).

The provision of universal health care services would therefore promote access to health care services to as many citizens as possible, which would reduce suffering and deaths of citizens who cannot cater for their health insurance. As I mentioned in the thesis, health care is a basic necessity to all citizens and therefore providing health care services to all would reduce inequality in the service access.

Universal health care would also come at a time when health care has become seemingly unaffordable for many middle income level citizens and business men in the United States. This has created a nation of inequality, which is unfair because every citizen pays tax, which should be used by the government to provide affordable basic services like health care. It should be mentioned here that the primary role of any government is to protect its citizens, among other things, from illness and disease (Shi and Singh 188).

Lastly not the least, the provision of universal health care in the United States would work for the benefit of the country and especially the doctors because it would create a centralized information centre, with database of all cases of illnesses, diseases and their occurrence and frequency. This would make it easier to diagnose patients, especially to identify any new strain of a disease, which would further help in coming up with adequate medication for such new illness or disease (balancedpolitics.org).

Universal Healthcare Provision Cons

One argument against the provision of universal health care in the United States is that such a policy would require enormous spending in terms of taxes to cater for the services in a universal manner. Since health care does not generate extra revenue, it would mean that the government would either be forced to cut budgetary allocations for other crucial sectors of general public concern like defense and education, or increase the taxes levied on the citizens, thus becoming an extra burden to the same citizens (balancedpolitics.org).

Another argument against the provision of universal health care services is that health care provision is a complex undertaking, involving varying interests, likes and preferences.

The argument that providing universal health care would do away with the bureaucratic inefficiency does not seem to be realistic because centralizing the health care sector would actually increase the bureaucracy, leading to further inefficiencies, especially due to the enormous number of clientele to be served. Furthermore, it would lead to lose of business for the insurance providers as well as the private health care practitioners, majority of whom serve the middle income citizens (balancedpolitics.org).

Arguably, the debate for the provision of universal health care can be seen as addressing a problem which is either not present, or negligible. This is because there are adequate options for each citizen to access health care services. Apart from the government hospitals, the private hospitals funded by non-governmental organizations provide health care to those citizens who are not under any medical cover (balancedpolitics.org).

Universal health care provision would lead to corruption and rent seeking behavior among policy makers. Since the services would be for all, and may sometimes be limited, corruption may set in making the medical practitioners even more corrupt than they are because of increased demand of the services. This may further lead to deterioration of the very health care sector the policy would be aiming at boosting through such a policy.

The provision of universal health care would limit the freedom of the US citizens to choose which health care program is best for them. It is important to underscore that the United States, being a capitalist economy is composed of people of varying financial abilities.

The provision of universal health care would therefore lower the patients’ flexibility in terms of how, when and where to access health care services and why. This is because such a policy would throw many private practitioners out of business, thus forcing virtually all citizens to fit in the governments’ health care program, which may not be good for everyone (Niles 293).

Lastly not the least, the provision of universal health care would be unfair to those citizens who live healthy lifestyles so as to avoid lifestyle diseases like obesity and lung cancer, which are very common in America. Many of the people suffering from obesity suffer due to their negligence or ignorance of health care advice provided by the government and other health care providers. Such a policy would therefore seem to unfairly punish those citizens who practice good health lifestyles, at the expense of the ignorant (Niles 293).

After discussing the pros and cons of universal health care provision in the United States, I restate my thesis that “The government of United States of America should provide universal health care to its citizens because health care is a basic necessity to every citizen, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, and socio economic status”, and argue that even though there are arguments against the provision of universal health care, such arguments, though valid, are not based on the guiding principle of that health care is a basic necessity to all citizens of the United States.

The arguments are also based on capitalistic way of thinking, which is not sensitive to the plight of many citizens who are not able to pay for their insurance health care cover.

The idea of providing universal health care to Americans would therefore save many deaths and unnecessary suffering by many citizens. Equally important to mention is the fact that such a policy may be described as a win win policy both for the rich and the poor or middle class citizens because it would not in any way negatively affect the rich, because as long as they have money, they would still be able to customize their health care through the employment family or personal doctors as the poor and the middle class go for the universal health care services.

Balanced politics. “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?” Balanced politics: universal health . Web. Balanced politics.org. 8 august https://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

Insurance specialists. “Growing Support for Universal Health Care”. Insurance information portal. Web. Insurance specialists.com 8 august 2011. https://insurancespecialists.com/

Niles, Nancy. Basics of the U.S. Health Care System . Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2010:293. Print.

Shi, Leiyu and Singh, Douglas. Delivering Health Care in America: A Systems Approach . Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2004:188. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 11). Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-provision-in-the-united-states/

"Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons." IvyPanda , 11 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-provision-in-the-united-states/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons'. 11 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons." October 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-provision-in-the-united-states/.

1. IvyPanda . "Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons." October 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-provision-in-the-united-states/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons." October 11, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-provision-in-the-united-states/.

• Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion Pros & Cons
• The Pros and Cons of Using Pie Charts in Healthcare
• A Company Having Healthcare Insurance for Workers: Pros and Cons
• Substandard Patient Care or Health Care Delivery
• Health Care Communication Methods
• Hospice and Pain Management
• Evolution of Hospice Care
• Home Based and Community Based Services (HCBS)

Persuasive Essay Example: Universal Healthcare

Many countries offer universal healthcare however in the United States many pay for medical health insurance. For many years people in the United States have struggled to pay for medical insurance. Traditionally, the cost for everything was low and people were able to afford things such as medical insurance and the cost of living. With the rise on prices such as food and the cost of living many people must struggle to pay for medical insurance, people have debt and people are not enjoying life. With free universal healthcare people will have less medical debt, people can enjoy life and people can save money.  Free Universal Healthcare is better than private health care because people will have less medical debt, there will be healthier happy people, and the U.S. can work with other countries on making a system that works better for future generation.

Universal health care is a better option for everyone because it is less medical debt for people who cannot afford medical insurance. The healthcare costs in the US have been rising at a very fast rate during the last two decades. One of the causes for the rising costs is unpaid medical bills (Donghui, Zurada, and Jian 2014).  Another key concern regarding medical debt is Recovering bad debt has become a serious matter and may even result in hospitals suing patients (Donghui, et al., 2014). Universal healthcare can eliminate many medical debt and people can focus on living stress free without the worry about working just to pay medical debt. With universal healthcare people can focus on staying healthy without the medical debt. 

Moreover, Universal healthcare can lead to a healthier population. According to Zeiff, Kerr, Moore, and Stoner. (2020) The downside of universal healthcare incorporates people to pay first before receiving the care and the plan did not account for something. On the other hand, Universal healthcare may lead to a healthier population and in the future, it can help alleviate the economic cost from a population who is unhealthy. Another key is Universal healthcare will better facilitate and encourage sustainable, preventive health practices and be more advantageous for the long-term public health and economy of the United States Zeiff, Kerr, Moore, and Stoner. (2020). People can benefit when having universal healthcare. With universal healthcare and a better understanding people can have a healthier population. With Universal healthcare, the country will have more healthy people, in the future it can help the country with better economy and with more research it can help generations to come.

Again, understanding other countries when using universal healthcare can be beneficial for everyone in the United States. Nayu et. al. (2011) Found that People in Japan have a longer life expectancy at birth in the world. Japan's success in terms of the increased life expectancy of its population is unlikely to have resulted solely from the achievement of good access to health care. Instead, other cultural background factors might be involved (Nayu et. al., 2011).  Continuing to do research and learning from other countries can help better understand what is best for everyone. Because some countries have Universal health care, we can study on what works for them, how can we improve for generations to come and what can we learn from other counties in perspective of their healthcare system.

Lastly, many experts believe that with universal healthcare the United stated will have a healthier population. With Universal Healthcare people will accumulate less debt, save money for any emergency, and we can learn from other countries making a better healthcare for future generations. With universal healthcare we can have a healthier population in which we will have less debt and an open mind to a better future for generations to come. Universal Healthcare should be for everyone because without it, people who cannot afford Insurance will continue to accumulate debt, die from not having insurance and our future generation will collect debt from family members who are unable to pay. Working with other countries to better understand universal healthcare will be beneficial for everyone.

Donghui Shi, Zurada, J., & Jian Guan. (2014). A Neuro-fuzzy Approach to Bad Debt   Recovery in Healthcare. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on, System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference On, 2888–2897. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.361

Gabriel Zieff, Zachary Y. Kerr, Justin B. Moore, & Lee Stoner. (2020). Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate. Medicina, 56(580), 580. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.3390/medicina56110580

Ikeda, N., Saito, E., Kondo, N., Inoue, M., Ikeda, S., Satoh, T., Wada, K., Stickley, A., Katanoda, K., Mizoue, T., Noda, M., Iso, H., Fujino, Y., Sobue, T., Tsugane, S., Naghavi, M., Ezzati, M., & Shibuya, K. (2011). What has made the population of Japan healthy? The Lancet, 378(9796), 1094–1105. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61055-6

Related Samples

• Issues With The Healthcare in The United States Essay Example
• Importance of Studying Memory Essay Sample
• Essay Sample about Alcohol, the Beverage of America
• Anesthetic Requirement Is Increased in Redheads Analysis Essay Example
• Importance of Nutrition and Eating Right Essay Sample
• Competitive Sports Can Be Unhealthy Essay Sample
• Essay Example on Vaping
• Awareness About Intermittent Explosive Disorder Essay Example
• Research Paper Example on Bipolar Disorder
• Causes of Anxiety in Children Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Medicina (Kaunas)

Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate

Gabriel zieff.

1 Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; ude.cnu.liame@rrekz (Z.Y.K.); [email protected] (L.S.)

Zachary Y. Kerr

Justin b. moore.

2 Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA; ude.htlaehekaw@eroomsuj

This commentary offers discussion on the pros and cons of universal healthcare in the United States. Disadvantages of universal healthcare include significant upfront costs and logistical challenges. On the other hand, universal healthcare may lead to a healthier populace, and thus, in the long-term, help to mitigate the economic costs of an unhealthy nation. In particular, substantial health disparities exist in the United States, with low socio–economic status segments of the population subject to decreased access to quality healthcare and increased risk of non-communicable chronic conditions such as obesity and type II diabetes, among other determinants of poor health. While the implementation of universal healthcare would be complicated and challenging, we argue that shifting from a market-based system to a universal healthcare system is necessary. Universal healthcare will better facilitate and encourage sustainable, preventive health practices and be more advantageous for the long-term public health and economy of the United States.

1. Introduction

Healthcare is one of the most significant socio–political topics in the United States (U.S.), and citizens currently rank “healthcare” as the most important issue when it comes to voting [ 1 ]. The U.S. has historically utilized a mixed public/private approach to healthcare. In this approach, citizens or businesses can obtain health insurance from private (e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente) insurance companies, while individuals may also qualify for public (e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran’s Affairs), government-subsidized health insurance. In contrast, the vast majority of post-industrial, Westernized nations have used various approaches to provide entirely or largely governmentally subsidized, universal healthcare to all citizens regardless of socio–economic status (SES), employment status, or ability to pay. The World Health Organization defines universal healthcare as “ensuring that all people have access to needed health services (including prevention, promotion, treatment, rehabilitation and palliation) of sufficient quality to be effective while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user the financial hardship” [ 2 ]. Importantly, the Obama-era passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to move the U.S. closer to universal healthcare by expanding health coverage for millions of Americans (e.g., via Medicaid expansion, launch of health insurance marketplaces for private coverage) including for citizens across income levels, age, race, and ethnicity.

Differing versions of universal healthcare are possible. The United Kingdom’s National Health Services can be considered a fairly traditional version of universal healthcare with few options for, and minimal use of, privatized care [ 3 ]. On the other hand, European countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany have utilized a blended system with substantial government and market-based components [ 4 , 5 ]. For example, Germany uses a multi-payer healthcare system in which subsidized health care is widely available for low-income citizens, yet private options—which provide the same quality and level of care as the subsidized option—are also available to higher income individuals. Thus, universal healthcare does not necessarily preclude the role of private providers within the healthcare system, but rather ensures that equity and effectiveness of care at population and individual levels are a reference and expectation for the system as a whole. In line with this, versions of universal healthcare have been implemented by countries with diverse political backgrounds (e.g., not limited to traditionally “socialist/liberal” countries), including some with very high degrees of economic freedom [ 6 , 7 ].

Determining the degree to which a nation’s healthcare is “universal” is complex and is not a “black and white” issue. For example, government backing, public will, and basic financing structure, among many other factors must be extensively considered. While an in-depth analysis of each of these factors is beyond the scope of this commentary, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to purely private, market-based, and governmental, universal approaches to healthcare, as well as for policies that lie somewhere in-between. This opinion piece will highlight arguments for and against universal healthcare in the U.S., followed by the authors’ stance on this issue and concluding remarks.

2. Argument against Universal Healthcare

Though the majority of post-industrial Westernized nations employ a universal healthcare model, few—if any—of these nations are as geographically large, populous, or ethnically/racially diverse as the U.S. Different regions in the U.S. are defined by distinct cultural identities, citizens have unique religious and political values, and the populace spans the socio–economic spectrum. Moreover, heterogenous climates and population densities confer different health needs and challenges across the U.S. [ 8 ]. Thus, critics of universal healthcare in the U.S. argue that implementation would not be as feasible—organizationally or financially—as other developed nations [ 9 ]. There is indeed agreement that realization of universal healthcare in the U.S. would necessitate significant upfront costs [ 10 ]. These costs would include those related to: (i) physical and technological infrastructural changes to the healthcare system, including at the government level (i.e., federal, state, local) as well as the level of the provider (e.g., hospital, out-patient clinic, pharmacy, etc.); (ii) insuring/treating a significant, previously uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of the population; and (iii) expansion of the range of services provided (e.g., dental, vision, hearing) [ 10 ].

The cost of a universal healthcare system would depend on its structure, benefit levels, and extent of coverage. However, most proposals would entail increased federal taxes, at least for higher earners [ 4 , 11 , 12 ]. One proposal for universal healthcare recently pushed included options such as a 7.5% payroll tax plus a 4% income tax on all Americans, with higher-income citizens subjected to higher taxes [ 13 ]. However, outside projections suggest that these tax proposals would not be sufficient to fund this plan. In terms of the national economic toll, cost estimations of this proposal range from USD 32 to 44 trillion across 10 years, while deficit estimations range from USD 1.1 to 2.1 trillion per year [ 14 ].

Beyond individual and federal costs, other common arguments against universal healthcare include the potential for general system inefficiency, including lengthy wait-times for patients and a hampering of medical entrepreneurship and innovation [ 3 , 12 , 15 , 16 ]. Such critiques are not new, as exemplified by rhetoric surrounding the Clinton Administration’s Health Security Act which was labeled as “government meddling” in medical care that would result in “big government inefficiency” [ 12 , 15 ]. The ACA has been met with similar resistance and bombast (e.g., the “repeal and replace” right-leaning rallying cry) as a result of perceived inefficiency and unwanted government involvement. As an example of lengthy wait times associated with universal coverage, in 2017 Canadians were on waiting lists for an estimated 1,040,791 procedures, and the median wait time for arthroplastic surgery was 20–52 weeks [ 17 ]. Similarly, average waiting time for elective hospital-based care in the United Kingdom is 46 days, while some patients wait over a year (3). Increased wait times in the U.S. would likely occur—at least in the short term—as a result of a steep rise in the number of primary and emergency care visits (due to eliminating the financial barrier to seek care), as well as general wastefulness, inefficiency, and disorganization that is often associated with bureaucratic, government-run agencies.

3. Argument for Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare in the U.S., which may or may not include private market-based options, offer several noteworthy advantages compared to exclusive systems with inequitable access to quality care including: (i) addressing the growing chronic disease crisis; (ii) mitigating the economic costs associated with said crisis; (iii) reducing the vast health disparities that exist between differing SES segments of the population; and (iv) increasing opportunities for preventive health initiatives [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Perhaps the most striking advantage of a universal healthcare system in the U.S. is the potential to address the epidemic level of non-communicable chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, and obesity, all of which strain the national economy [ 22 , 23 ]. The economic strain associated with an unhealthy population is particularly evident among low SES individuals. Having a low SES is associated with many unfavorable health determinants, including decreased access to, and quality of health insurance which impact health outcomes and life expectancies [ 24 ]. Thus, the low SES segments of the population are in most need of accessible, quality health insurance, and economic strain results from an unhealthy and uninsured low SES [ 25 , 26 ]. For example, diabetics with low SES have a greater mortality risk than diabetics with higher SES, and the uninsured diabetic population is responsible for 55% more emergency room visits each year than their insured diabetic counterparts [ 27 , 28 ]. Like diabetes, hypertension—the leading risk factor for death worldwide [ 29 ], has a much higher prevalence among low SES populations [ 30 ]. It is estimated that individuals with uncontrolled hypertension have more than USD 2000 greater annual healthcare costs than their normotensive counterparts [ 31 ]. Lastly, the incidence of obesity is also much greater among low SES populations [ 32 ]. The costs of obesity in the U.S., when limited to lost productivity alone, have been projected to equate to USD 66 billion annually [ 33 ]. Accessible, affordable healthcare may enable earlier intervention to prevent—or limit risk associated with—non-communicable chronic diseases, improve the overall public health of the U.S., and decrease the economic strain associated with an unhealthy low-SES.

Preventive Initiatives within A Universal Healthcare Model

Beyond providing insurance coverage for a substantial, uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of society—and thereby reducing disparities and unequal access to care among all segments of the population—there is great potential for universal healthcare models to embrace value-based care [ 4 , 20 , 34 ]. Value-based care can be thought of as appropriate and affordable care (tackling wastes), and integration of services and systems of care (i.e., hospital, primary, public health), including preventive care that considers the long-term health and economy of a nation [ 34 , 35 ]. In line with this, the ACA has worked in parallel with population-level health programs such as the Healthy People Initiative by targeting modifiable determinants of health including physical activity, obesity, and environmental quality, among others [ 36 ]. Given that a universal healthcare plan would force the government to pay for costly care and treatments related to complications resulting from preventable, non-communicable chronic diseases, the government may be more incentivized to (i) offer primary prevention of chronic disease risk prior to the onset of irreversible complications, and (ii) promote wide-spread preventive efforts across multiple societal domains. It is also worth acknowledging here that the national public health response to the novel Coronavirus-19 virus is a salient and striking contemporary example of a situation in which there continues to be a need to expeditiously coordinate multiple levels of policy, care, and prevention.

Preventive measures lessen costs associated with an uninsured and/or unhealthy population [ 37 ]. For example, investing USD 10 per person annually in community-based programs aimed at combatting physical inactivity, poor nutrition, and smoking in the U.S. could save more than USD 16 billion annually within five years, equating to a return of USD 5.60 for every dollar spent [ 38 ]. Another recent analysis suggests that if 18% more U.S. elementary-school children participated in 25 min of physical activity three times per week, savings attributed to medical costs and productivity would amount to USD 21.9 billion over their lifetime [ 39 ]. Additionally, simple behavioral changes can have major clinical implications. For example, simply brisk walking for 30 min per day (≥15 MET-hours/week) has been associated with a 50% reduction in type II diabetes [ 40 ]. While universal healthcare does not necessarily mean that health policies supporting prevention will be enacted, it may be more likely to promote healthy (i) lifestyle behaviors (e.g., physical activity), (ii) environmental factors (e.g., safe, green spaces in low and middle-income communities), and (iii.) policies (e.g., banning sweetened beverages in public schools) compared to a non-inclusive system [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

Nordic nations provide an example of inclusive healthcare coupled with multi-layered preventive efforts [ 41 ]. In this model, all citizens are given the same comprehensive healthcare while social determinants of health are targeted. This includes “mobilizing and coordinating a large number of players in society,” which encourages cooperation among “players” including municipal political bodies, voluntary organizations, and educational institutions [ 41 ]. Developmental and infrastructural contributions from multiple segments of society to a healthcare system may also better encourage government accountability compared to a system in which a select group of private insurers and citizens are the only “stakeholders.” Coordinated efforts on various non-insurance-related fronts have focused on obesity, mental health, and physical activity [ 41 ]. Such coordinated efforts within the Nordic model have translated to positive health outcomes. For example, the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index provides an overall score of 0–100 (0 being the worst) for healthcare access and quality across 195 countries and reflects rates of 32 preventable causes of death. Nordic nations had an average HAQ score of 95.4, with four of the five nations achieving scores within the top 10 worldwide [ 42 ]. Though far more heterogenous compared to Nordic nations, (e.g., culturally, geographically, racially, etc.), the U.S. had a score of 89 (29th overall) [ 42 ]. To provide further context, other industrialized nations, which are more comparable to the U.S. than Nordic nations, also ranked higher than the U.S. including Germany (92, 19th overall), Canada (94, 14th overall), Switzerland (96, 7th overall), and the Netherlands (96, 3rd overall) [ 42 ].

4. Conclusions

Non-inclusive, inequitable systems limit quality healthcare access to those who can afford it or have employer-sponsored insurance. These policies exacerbate health disparities by failing to prioritize preventive measures at the environmental, policy, and individual level. Low SES segments of the population are particularly vulnerable within a healthcare system that does not prioritize affordable care for all or address important determinants of health. Failing to prioritize comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all members of society and straying further from prevention will harm the health and economy of the U.S. While there are undoubtedly great economic costs associated with universal healthcare in the U.S., we argue that in the long-run, these costs will be worthwhile, and will eventually be offset by a healthier populace whose health is less economically burdensome. Passing of the Obama-era ACA was a positive step forward as evident by the decline in uninsured U.S. citizens (estimated 7–16.4 million) and Medicare’s lower rate of spending following the legislation [ 43 ]. The U.S. must resist the current political efforts to dislodge the inclusive tenets of the Affordable Care Act. Again, this is not to suggest that universal healthcare will be a cure-all, as social determinants of health must also be addressed. However, addressing these determinants will take time and universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens is needed now. Only through universal and inclusive healthcare will we be able to pave an economically sustainable path towards true public health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Z., Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; writing-original draft preparation, G.Z.; writing-review and editing, Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; supervision, L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.10 Persuasive Essay

Learning objective.

• Read an example of the persuasive rhetorical mode.

Universal Health Care Coverage for the United States

The United States is the only modernized Western nation that does not offer publicly funded health care to all its citizens; the costs of health care for the uninsured in the United States are prohibitive, and the practices of insurance companies are often more interested in profit margins than providing health care. These conditions are incompatible with US ideals and standards, and it is time for the US government to provide universal health care coverage for all its citizens. Like education, health care should be considered a fundamental right of all US citizens, not simply a privilege for the upper and middle classes.

One of the most common arguments against providing universal health care coverage (UHC) is that it will cost too much money. In other words, UHC would raise taxes too much. While providing health care for all US citizens would cost a lot of money for every tax-paying citizen, citizens need to examine exactly how much money it would cost, and more important, how much money is “too much” when it comes to opening up health care for all. Those who have health insurance already pay too much money, and those without coverage are charged unfathomable amounts. The cost of publicly funded health care versus the cost of current insurance premiums is unclear. In fact, some Americans, especially those in lower income brackets, could stand to pay less than their current premiums.

However, even if UHC would cost Americans a bit more money each year, we ought to reflect on what type of country we would like to live in, and what types of morals we represent if we are more willing to deny health care to others on the basis of saving a couple hundred dollars per year. In a system that privileges capitalism and rugged individualism, little room remains for compassion and love. It is time that Americans realize the amorality of US hospitals forced to turn away the sick and poor. UHC is a health care system that aligns more closely with the core values that so many Americans espouse and respect, and it is time to realize its potential.

Another common argument against UHC in the United States is that other comparable national health care systems, like that of England, France, or Canada, are bankrupt or rife with problems. UHC opponents claim that sick patients in these countries often wait in long lines or long wait lists for basic health care. Opponents also commonly accuse these systems of being unable to pay for themselves, racking up huge deficits year after year. A fair amount of truth lies in these claims, but Americans must remember to put those problems in context with the problems of the current US system as well. It is true that people often wait to see a doctor in countries with UHC, but we in the United States wait as well, and we often schedule appointments weeks in advance, only to have onerous waits in the doctor’s “waiting rooms.”

Critical and urgent care abroad is always treated urgently, much the same as it is treated in the United States. The main difference there, however, is cost. Even health insurance policy holders are not safe from the costs of health care in the United States. Each day an American acquires a form of cancer, and the only effective treatment might be considered “experimental” by an insurance company and thus is not covered. Without medical coverage, the patient must pay for the treatment out of pocket. But these costs may be so prohibitive that the patient will either opt for a less effective, but covered, treatment; opt for no treatment at all; or attempt to pay the costs of treatment and experience unimaginable financial consequences. Medical bills in these cases can easily rise into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is enough to force even wealthy families out of their homes and into perpetual debt. Even though each American could someday face this unfortunate situation, many still choose to take the financial risk. Instead of gambling with health and financial welfare, US citizens should press their representatives to set up UHC, where their coverage will be guaranteed and affordable.

Despite the opponents’ claims against UHC, a universal system will save lives and encourage the health of all Americans. Why has public education been so easily accepted, but not public health care? It is time for Americans to start thinking socially about health in the same ways they think about education and police services: as rights of US citizens.

Online Persuasive Essay Alternatives

Martin Luther King Jr. writes persuasively about civil disobedience in Letter from Birmingham Jail :

• http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
• http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf
• http://www.oak-tree.us/stuff/King-Birmingham.pdf

Michael Levin argues The Case for Torture :

• http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/torture.html

Alan Dershowitz argues The Case for Torture Warrants :

• http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/09/07/the-case-for-torture-warrants/

Alisa Solomon argues The Case against Torture :

• http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-11-27/news/the-case-against-torture/1

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Point Turning Point: the Case for Universal Health Care

An argument that the COVID-19 pandemic might be the turning point for universal health care.

Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care

As we all grapple with our new reality, it's difficult to think of anything beyond the basics. How do we keep our families safe? Are we washing our hands enough ? Do we really have to sanitize the doorknobs and surfaces every day? How do we get our cats to stop videobombing our Zoom meetings? Do we have enough toilet paper?

Win McNamee | Getty Images

The more we read the headlines, the more we feel the need to do something, or at least say something. Change is happening – ready or not. Maybe talking about some of these important issues can lead to action that will help us steer out of this skid.

Historically, Americans have found ways to meet their circumstances with intention, moving in mass to make heretofore unimaginable change that has sustained and improved our lives to this day. The Great Depression lead to the creation of the New Deal and Social Security. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire brought about change in labor conditions. The Cuyahoga River fire lead to the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Could the COVID-19 pandemic be the turning point for universal health care? We can't think of a more propitious time. In the first two weeks of April, 5.2 million Americans filed for unemployment. Economists believe that 30% unemployment is possible by fall. For most Americans, our health care is tied to our employment, and because of this, millions of Americans are losing their health care just when they may need it the most. Economists predict that health insurance premiums will likely increase by 40% in the next year due to less payers and more who are in need of care and the eventual collapse of private health care insurance .

Our current circumstances have illustrated the need for universal health care in a way that is obvious and undeniable. Below we have listed the most frequent arguments in opposition followed by an evidence-based rebuttal.

1. Point: "Governments are wasteful and shouldn't be in charge of health care."

Counterpoint: In 2017, the U.S. spent twice as much on health care (17.1% of GDP) as comparable Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries (OECD) (8.8% of GDP), all of whom have universal health care. The country with the second highest expenditure after the U.S. is Switzerland at 12.3%, nearly 5% less. Of all these countries, the U.S. has the highest portion of private insurance. In terms of dollars spent, the average per capita health care spending of OECD countries is $3,558, while in the U.S. it's $10,207 – nearly three times as costly.

Bottom line: Among industrialized countries with comparable levels of economic development, government-provided health care is much more efficient and more economical than the U.S. system of private insurance.

2. Point: "U.S. health care is superior to the care offered by countries with universal health care."

Counterpoint: According to the Commonwealth Health Fund , in the U.S., infant mortality is higher and the life span is shorter than among all comparable economies that provide universal health care. Maternal mortality in the U.S. is 30 per 100,000 births and 6.4 per 100,000 births on average in comparable countries, which is nearly five times worse.

In addition, the U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) and an obesity rate that is two times higher than the OECD average. In part due to these neglected conditions, in comparison to comparable countries, the U.S. (as of 2016) had among the highest number of hospitalizations from preventable causes and the highest rate of avoidable deaths.

The Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker , which is a collaborative effort to monitor the quality and cost of U.S. health care, shows that among comparable countries with universal health care, mortality rate is lower across the board on everything from heart attacks to child birth. The U.S. also has higher rates of medical, medication and lab errors relative to similar countries with universal health care.

Bottom line: With our largely privately funded health care system, we are paying more than twice as much as other countries for worse outcomes.

3. Point: "Universal health care would be more expensive."

Counterpoint: The main reason U.S. health care costs are so high is because we don't have universal health care. Unlike other first world countries, the health care system in the U.S. is, to a great extent, run through a group of businesses. Pharmaceutical companies are businesses. Insurance companies are businesses. Hospital conglomerates are businesses. Even doctors' offices are businesses.

Businesses are driven to streamline and to cut costs because their primary goal is to make a profit. If they don't do this, they can't stay in business. It could mean that in the process of "streamlining," they would be tempted to cut costs by cutting care. Under the current system, a share of our health care dollars goes to dividends rather than to pay for care, hospitals are considered a "financial asset" rather than a public service entity and a large portion of their budgets are dedicated to marketing rather than patient care.

Given all these business expenses, it shouldn't be surprising that the business-oriented privately funded health care system we have is more expensive and less effective than a government provided universal system. In addition, for the health care system as a whole, universal health care would mean a massive paperwork reduction. A universal system would eliminate the need to deal with all the different insurance forms and the negotiations over provider limitations. As a result, this would eliminate a large expense for both doctors and hospitals.

The economist Robert Kuttner critiques the system this way: "For-profit chains … claim to increase efficiencies by centralizing administration, cutting waste, buying supplies in bulk at discounted rates, negotiating discounted fees with medical professionals, shifting to less wasteful forms of care and consolidating duplicative facilities." As he points out, "using that logic, the most efficient 'chain' of all is a universal national system."

Evidence to support these points can be found in a recent Yale University study that showed that single-payer Medicare For All would result in a 13% savings in national health-care expenditures. This would save the country $450 billion annually.

Bottom line: Universal health care would be less expensive overall, and an added benefit would be that health care decisions would be put in the hands of doctors rather than insurance companies, which have allegiances to shareholders instead of patient care.

4. Point: "I have to take care of my own family. I can't afford to worry about other people."

Counterpoint: It is in all of our best interests to take care of everyone. Aside from the fact that it is the compassionate and moral thing to do, viruses do not discriminate. When people don't have insurance, they won't go to the doctor unless they're gravely ill. Then, they're more likely to spread illness to you and your family members while they delay getting the care they need.

In addition, when people wait for care or don't get the prophylactic care then need, they end up in the emergency room worse off with more costly complications and requiring more resources than if they had been treated earlier. Taxpayers currently cover this cost. This affects everyone, insured or not. Why not prevent the delay upfront and make it easy for the patient to get treatment early and, as an added bonus, cost everyone less money?

In addition, the health of the economy impacts everyone. Healthy workers are essential to healthy businesses and thus a healthy economy. According to the Harvard School of Public Health , people who are able to maintain their health are more likely to spend their money on goods and services that drive the economy.

Bottom line: The health of others is relevant to the health of our families either through containment of infectious diseases such as COVID-19 or through the stability of the economy. Capitalism works best with a healthy workforce.

5. Point: "Entrepreneurship and innovation is what makes the U.S. a world leader."

Counterpoint: Imagine how many people in the U.S. could start their own businesses or bring their ideas to market if they didn't have to worry about maintaining health care for their families. So many people stay tethered to jobs they hate just so their family has health care. With workers not needing to stay in jobs they don't like in order to secure health insurance, universal healthcare would enable people to acquire jobs where they would be happier and more productive. Workers who wanted to start their own business could more easily do so, allowing them to enter the most creative and innovative part of our economy – small businesses.

In his book, "Everything for Sale," economist Robert Kuttner asserts that it's important to understand that businesses outside of the U.S. don't have to provide health care for their employees, which makes them more competitive. From a business point of view, American companies, released from the burden of paying employee insurance, would be more competitive internationally. They would also be more profitable as they wouldn't have to do all the paperwork and the negotiating involved with being the intermediary between employees and insurance companies.

Bottom line: Unburdening businesses from the responsibility of providing health insurance for their employees would increase competitiveness as well as encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and allow small businesses room to thrive.

6. Point: "The wait times are too long in countries with universal health care."

Counterpoint: The wait times on average are no longer in countries with universal healthcare than they are in the U.S., according to the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker . In some cases, the wait times are longer in the U.S., with insurance companies using valuable time with their requirements to obtain referrals and approvals for sometimes urgently needed treatments. On average, residents of Germany, France, UK, Australia, and the Netherlands reported shorter wait times relative to the U.S.

Bottom line: Wait times are longer in the U.S. when compared with many countries with a universal health care system.

7. Point: "My insurance is working just fine, so why change anything?"

Counterpoint: A comprehensive study conducted in 2018 found that 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and, of those, 75% were insured at the time. Most people who have insurance are insufficiently covered and are one accident, cancer diagnosis or heart attack away from going bankrupt and losing everything. The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world whose citizens go bankrupt due to medical bills. And, if you survive a serious illness and don't go bankrupt, you may end up buried in bills and paperwork from your insurance company and medical providers. All of this takes time and energy that would be better spent healing or caring for our loved ones. Besides, we don't need to abolish private health insurance. Some countries like Germany have a two-tiered system that provides basic non-profit care for all but also allows citizens to purchase premium plans through private companies.

Bottom line: Private insurance does not protect against medical bankruptcy, but universal health care does. The residents of countries with universal health care do not go bankrupt due to medical bills.

8. Point: "I don't worry about losing my insurance because if I lose my job, I can just get another one."

Counterpoint: We can't predict what will happen with the economy and whether another job will be available to us. This pandemic has proven that it can all go bad overnight. In addition, if you lose your job, there is less and less guarantee that you will find a new job that provides insurance . Providing insurance, because it is so expensive, has become an increasingly difficult thing for companies to do. Even if you're able to find a company that provides health care when you change jobs, you would be relying on your employer to choose your health plan. This means that the employee assumes that the company has his or her best interests in mind when making that choice, rather than prioritizing the bottom line for the benefit of the business. Even if they're not trying to maximize their profit, many companies have been forced to reduce the quality of the insurance they provide to their workers, simply out of the need to be more competitive or maintain solvency.

Bottom line: There are too many factors beyond our control (e.g., pandemic, disability, economic recession) to ensure anyone's employment and, thus, health care. Universal health care would guarantee basic care. Nobody would have to go without care due to a job loss, there would be greater control over costs and businesses would not have to fold due to the exorbitant and rising cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

9. Point: "Pharmaceutical companies need to charge so much because of research and development."

Counterpoint: It's usually not the pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs. They develop similar drugs that are variations on existing drugs, altered slightly so that they can claim a new patent. Or they buy out smaller companies that developed new drugs, thus minimizing their own R&D costs. Most commonly, they manufacture drugs developed under funding from the National Institutes of Health, and thus, the tax payers are the greatest funder of drug development via NIH grants provided to university labs.

Oddly, this investment in R&D does not appear to extend any discount to the tax payers themselves. In "The Deadly Costs of Insulin, " the author writes that insulin was developed in a university lab in 1936. In 1996, the cost of a vial of insulin was $21. Today, the cost of a vial of insulin could be as much as $500, causing some without insurance to risk their lives by rationing or going without. The cost of manufacturing the drug has not gone up during that time. So, what accounts for the huge increase in price? In " The Truth About Drug Companies ," the author demonstrates that drug companies use the bulk of their profits for advertising, not R&D or manufacturing. A universal health care system would not only not need to advertise, but would also be more effective at negotiating fair drug prices. Essentially, the government as a very large entity could negotiate price much more effectively as one large system with the government as the largest purchaser.

Bottom line: Taxpayers contribute most of the money that goes into drug development. Shouldn't they also reap some of the benefits of their contribution to R&D? Americans should not have to decide between their heart medication and putting food on the table when their tax dollars have paid for the development of many of these medications.

10. Point: "I don't want my taxes to go up."

Counterpoint: Health care costs and deductibles will go down to zero and more than compensate for any increase in taxes, and overall health care needs will be paid for, not just catastrophic health events. According to the New York Times , “…when an American family earns around $43,000, half of the average compensation when including cash wages plus employer payroll tax and premium contributions, 37% of that ends up going to taxes and health care premiums. In high-tax Finland, the same type of family pays 23% of their compensation in labor taxes, which includes taxes they pay to support universal health care. In France, it’s 2%. In the United Kingdom and Canada, it is less than 0% after government benefits.”

Bottom line: With a universal health care system, health care costs and deductibles will be eliminated and compensate for any increase in taxes.

11. Point: "I don't want to have to pay for health care for people making bad choices or to cover their pre-existing conditions."

Counterpoint: Many of the health problems on the pre-existing conditions list are common, genetically influenced and often unavoidable. One estimate indicates that up to 50% – half! – of all (non-elderly) adults have a pre-existing condition. Conditions on the list include anxiety, arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, heart defect, menstrual irregularities, stroke and even pregnancy. With universal health care, no one would be denied coverage.

It's easy to assume that your health is under your control, until you get into an accident, are diagnosed with cancer or have a child born prematurely. All of a sudden, your own or your child's life may rely on health care that costs thousands or even millions of dollars. The health insurance that you once thought of as "good enough" may no longer suffice, bankruptcy may become unavoidable and you (or your child) will forever have a pre-existing condition. Some people may seem careless with their health, but who's to judge what an avoidable health problem is, vs. one that was beyond their control?

For the sake of argument, let's say that there are some folks in the mix who are engaging in poor health-related behaviors. Do we really want to withhold quality care from everyone because some don't take care of their health in the way we think they should? Extending that supposition, we would withhold public education just because not everyone takes it seriously.

Bottom line: In 2014, protections for pre-existing conditions were put in place under the Affordable Care Act. This protection is under continuous threat as insurance company profits are placed above patient care. Universal health care would ensure that everyone was eligible for care regardless of any conditions they may have.

And, if universal health care is so awful, why has every other first-world nation implemented it? These countries include: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and the U.K.

Changing collective minds can seem impossible. But there is precedent. Once unimaginable large-scale change has happened in our lifetime (e.g. legalization of gay marriage, election of the first black president of the U.S. and the #MeToo movement), and support for universal health care has never been higher (71% in favor, according to a 2019 Hill-HarrisX survey ).

Point: As Chuck Pagano said, "If you don't have your health, you don't have anything."

Counterpoint: If good health is everything, why don't we vote as if our lives depended on it? This pandemic has taught us that it does.

Bottom line: Launching universal health care in the U.S. could be a silver lining in the dark cloud of this pandemic. Rather than pay lip service to what really matters, let's actually do something by putting our votes in service of what we really care about: the long-term physical and economic health of our families, our communities and our country.

Photos: Hospital Heroes

Tags: health insurance , health care , Coronavirus , pandemic , New Normal

Most Popular

Patient Advice

health disclaimer »

Disclaimer and a note about your health ».

Sign Up for Our 3-Day Guide to Medicare

Confused about Medicare? We can help you understand the different Medicare coverage options available to help you choose the best Medicare coverage for you or a loved one.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

Pregnancy checklist.

Payton Sy May 17, 2024

Early Pregnancy Signs

Vanessa Caceres May 17, 2024

Prostate Cancer: Questions to Ask

Ruben Castaneda and Payton Sy May 16, 2024

Does Medicare Cover the RSV Vaccine?

Paul Wynn May 16, 2024

5 Types of Primary Care Doctors

Elaine K. Howley May 15, 2024

How to Tell You Have a Hernia?

Claire Wolters May 14, 2024

How to Treat Seasonal Allergies

Shanley Chien May 13, 2024

Questions to Ask About Diabetes

Toby Smithson and Elaine K. Howley May 13, 2024

ER, Urgent Care or Primary Physician?

Elaine K. Howley May 10, 2024

IUI vs. IVF

Christine Comizio May 9, 2024

• Writing for Success: Argument

This section will help you determine the purpose and structure of an argumentative essay.

The Purpose of Argument in Writing

The idea of an argument often conjures up images of two people yelling and screaming in anger. In writing, however, an argument is very different. An argument is a reasoned opinion supported and explained by evidence. To argue in writing is to advance knowledge and ideas in a positive way. Written arguments often fail when they employ ranting rather than reasoning.

The Structure of an Argumentative Essay

The following five features make up the structure of an argumentative essay:

• Introduction and thesis
• Opposing and qualifying ideas
• Strong evidence in support of claim
• Style and tone of language
• A compelling conclusion

Creating an Introduction and Thesis

The argumentative essay begins with an engaging introduction that presents the general topic. The thesis typically appears somewhere in the introduction and states the writer’s point of view.

Acknowledging Opposing Ideas and Limits to Your Argument

Because an argument implies differing points of view on the subject, you must be sure to acknowledge those opposing ideas. Avoiding ideas that conflict with your own gives the reader the impression that you may be uncertain, fearful, or unaware of opposing ideas. Thus it is essential that you not only address counterarguments but also do so respectfully.

Try to address opposing arguments earlier rather than later in your essay. Rhetorically speaking, ordering your positive arguments last allows you to better address ideas that conflict with your own, so you can spend the rest of the essay countering those arguments. This way, you leave your reader thinking about your argument rather than someone else’s. You have the last word.

Acknowledging points of view different from your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. They know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give them space.

It is also helpful to establish the limits of your argument and what you are trying to accomplish. In effect, you are conceding early on that your argument is not the ultimate authority on a given topic. Such humility can go a long way toward earning credibility and trust with an audience. Audience members will know from the beginning that you are a reasonable writer, and audience members will trust your argument as a result. For example, in the following concessionary statement, the writer advocates for stricter gun control laws, but she admits it will not solve all of our problems with crime:

Such a concession will be welcome by those who might disagree with this writer’s argument in the first place. To effectively persuade their readers, writers need to be modest in their goals and humble in their approach to get readers to listen to the ideas. Certain  transitional words and phrases  aid in keeping the reader oriented in the sequencing of a story. Some of these phrases are listed here:

Phrases of Concession

Bias in Writing

Everyone has various biases on any number of topics. For example, you might have a bias toward wearing black instead of brightly colored clothes or wearing jeans rather than formal wear. You might have a bias toward working at night rather than in the morning, or working by deadlines rather than getting tasks done in advance. These examples identify minor biases, of course, but they still indicate preferences and opinions.

Handling bias in writing and in daily life can be a useful skill. It will allow you to articulate your own points of view while also defending yourself against unreasonable points of view. The ideal in persuasive writing is to let your reader know your bias, but do not let that bias blind you to the primary components of good argumentation: sound, thoughtful evidence and a respectful and reasonable address of opposing sides.

The strength of a personal bias is that it can motivate you to construct a strong argument. If you are invested in the topic, you are more likely to care about the piece of writing. Similarly, the more you care, the more time and effort you are apt to put forth and the better the final product will be.

The weakness of bias is when the bias begins to take over the essay—when, for example, you neglect opposing ideas, exaggerate your points, or repeatedly insert yourself ahead of the subject by using Itoo often. Being aware of all three of these pitfalls will help you avoid them.

The Use of  I  in Writing

The use of  I  in writing is often a topic of debate, and the acceptance of its usage varies from instructor to instructor. It is difficult to predict the preferences for all your present and future instructors, but consider the effects it can potentially have on your writing.

Be mindful of the use of  I  in your writing because it can make your argument sound overly biased. There are two primary reasons:

• Excessive repetition of any word will eventually catch the reader’s attention—and usually not in a good way. The use of  I  is no different.
• The insertion of  I  into a sentence alters not only the way a sentence might sound but also the composition of the sentence itself.  I  is often the subject of a sentence. If the subject of the essay is supposed to be, say, smoking, then by inserting yourself into the sentence, you are effectively displacing the subject of the essay into a secondary position. In the following example, the subject of the sentence is underlined:

Smoking  is bad. I  think smoking is bad.

In the first sentence, the rightful subject,  smoking , is in the subject position in the sentence. In the second sentence, the insertion of  I  and think replaces smoking as the subject, which draws attention to  I  and away from the topic that is supposed to be discussed. Remember to keep the message (the subject) and the messenger (the writer) separate.

Developing Sound Arguments

Use the following checklist to develop sound arguments in your essay:

• An engaging introduction
• A reasonable, specific thesis that is able to be supported by evidence
• A varied range of evidence from credible sources
• Respectful acknowledgement and explanation of opposing ideas
• A style and tone of language that is appropriate for the subject and audience
• Acknowledgement of the argument’s limits
• A conclusion that will adequately summarize the essay and reinforce the thesis

Fact and Opinion

Facts  are statements that can be definitely proven using objective data. The statement that is a fact is absolutely valid. In other words, the statement can be pronounced as true or false. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. This expression identifies a true statement, or a fact, because it can be proved with objective data.

Opinions  are personal views, or judgments. An opinion is what an individual believes about a particular subject. However, an opinion in argumentation must have legitimate backing; adequate evidence and credibility should support the opinion. Consider the credibility of expert opinions. Experts in a given field have the knowledge and credentials to make their opinion meaningful to a larger audience.

For example, you seek the opinion of your dentist when it comes to the health of your gums, and you seek the opinion of your mechanic when it comes to the maintenance of your car. Both have knowledge and credentials in those respective fields, which is why their opinions matter to you. But the authority of your dentist may be greatly diminished should he or she offer an opinion about your car, and vice versa.

In writing, you want to strike a balance between credible facts and authoritative opinions. Relying on one or the other will likely lose more of your audience than it gains.

The word prove is frequently used in the discussion of argumentative writing. Writers may claim that one piece of evidence or another proves the argument, but proving an argument is often not possible. No evidence proves a debatable topic one way or the other; that is why the topic is debatable. Facts can be proved, but opinions can only be supported, explained, and persuaded.

Using Visual Elements to Strengthen Arguments

Adding visual elements to a persuasive argument can often strengthen its persuasive effect. There are two main types of visual elements: quantitative visuals and qualitative visuals.

Quantitative visuals  present data graphically and visually. They allow the audience to see statistics spatially. The purpose of using quantitative visuals is to make logical appeals to the audience. For example, sometimes it is easier to understand the disparity in certain statistics if you can see how the disparity looks graphically. Bar graphs, pie charts, Venn diagrams, histograms, line graphs and infographics are all ways of presenting quantitative data in visual and/or spatial dimensions.

Qualitative visuals  present images that appeal to the audience’s emotions. Photographs and pictorial images are examples of qualitative visuals. Such images often try to convey a story, and seeing an actual example can carry more power than hearing or reading about the example. For example, one image of a child suffering from malnutrition will likely have more of an emotional impact than pages dedicated to describing that same condition in writing.

Writing an Argumentative Essay

Choose a topic that you feel passionate about. If your instructor requires you to write about a specific topic, approach the subject from an angle that interests you. Begin your essay with an engaging introduction. Your thesis should typically appear somewhere in your introduction.

Start by acknowledging and explaining points of view that may conflict with your own to build credibility and trust with your audience. Also state the limits of your argument. This too helps you sound more reasonable and honest to those who may naturally be inclined to disagree with your view. By respectfully acknowledging opposing arguments and conceding limitations to your own view, you set a measured and responsible tone for the essay.

Make your appeals in support of your thesis by using sound, credible evidence. Use a balance of facts and opinions from a wide range of sources, such as scientific studies, expert testimony, statistics, and personal anecdotes. Each piece of evidence should be fully explained and clearly stated.

Make sure that your style and tone are appropriate for your subject and audience. Tailor your language and word choice to these two factors, while still being true to your own voice.

Finally, write a conclusion that effectively summarizes the main argument and reinforces your thesis.

Argumentative Essay Example

Universal Health Care Coverage for the United States

By Scott McLean

The United States is the only modernized Western nation that does not offer publicly funded health care to all its citizens; the costs of health care for the uninsured in the United States are prohibitive, and the practices of insurance companies are often more interested in profit margins than providing health care. These conditions are incompatible with US ideals and standards, and it is time for the US government to provide universal health care coverage for all its citizens. Like education, health care should be considered a fundamental right of all US citizens, not simply a privilege for the upper and middle classes.

One of the most common arguments against providing universal health care coverage (UHC) is that it will cost too much money. In other words, UHC would raise taxes too much. While providing health care for all US citizens would cost a lot of money for every tax-paying citizen, citizens need to examine exactly how much money it would cost, and more important, how much money is “too much” when it comes to opening up health care for all. Those who have health insurance already pay too much money, and those without coverage are charged unfathomable amounts. The cost of publicly funded health care versus the cost of current insurance premiums is unclear. In fact, some Americans, especially those in lower income brackets, could stand to pay less than their current premiums.

However, even if UHC would cost Americans a bit more money each year, we ought to reflect on what type of country we would like to live in, and what types of morals we represent if we are more willing to deny health care to others on the basis of saving a couple hundred dollars per year. In a system that privileges capitalism and rugged individualism, little room remains for compassion and love. It is time that Americans realize the amorality of US hospitals forced to turn away the sick and poor. UHC is a health care system that aligns more closely with the core values that so many Americans espouse and respect, and it is time to realize its potential.

Another common argument against UHC in the United States is that other comparable national health care systems, like that of England, France, or Canada, are bankrupt or rife with problems. UHC opponents claim that sick patients in these countries often wait in long lines or long wait lists for basic health care. Opponents also commonly accuse these systems of being unable to pay for themselves, racking up huge deficits year after year. A fair amount of truth lies in these claims, but Americans must remember to put those problems in context with the problems of the current US system as well. It is true that people often wait to see a doctor in countries with UHC, but we in the United States wait as well, and we often schedule appointments weeks in advance, only to have onerous waits in the doctor’s “waiting rooms.”

Critical and urgent care abroad is always treated urgently, much the same as it is treated in the United States. The main difference there, however, is cost. Even health insurance policy holders are not safe from the costs of health care in the United States. Each day an American acquires a form of cancer, and the only effective treatment might be considered “experimental” by an insurance company and thus is not covered. Without medical coverage, the patient must pay for the treatment out of pocket. But these costs may be so prohibitive that the patient will either opt for a less effective, but covered, treatment; opt for no treatment at all; or attempt to pay the costs of treatment and experience unimaginable financial consequences. Medical bills in these cases can easily rise into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is enough to force even wealthy families out of their homes and into perpetual debt. Even though each American could someday face this unfortunate situation, many still choose to take the financial risk. Instead of gambling with health and financial welfare, US citizens should press their representatives to set up UHC, where their coverage will be guaranteed and affordable.

Despite the opponents’ claims against UHC, a universal system will save lives and encourage the health of all Americans. Why has public education been so easily accepted, but not public health care? It is time for Americans to start thinking socially about health in the same ways they think about education and police services: as rights of US citizens.

Key Takeaways

• The purpose of argument in writing is to convince or move readers toward a certain point of view, or opinion.
• An argument is a reasoned opinion supported and explained by evidence. To argue, in writing, is to advance knowledge and ideas in a positive way.
• A thesis that expresses the opinion of the writer in more specific terms is better than one that is vague.
• It is essential that you not only address counterarguments but also do so respectfully.
• It is also helpful to establish the limits of your argument and what you are trying to accomplish through a concession statement.
• To persuade a skeptical audience, you will need to use a wide range of evidence. Scientific studies, opinions from experts, historical precedent, statistics, personal anecdotes, and current events are all types of evidence that you might use in explaining your point.
• Make sure that your word choice and writing style is appropriate for both your subject and your audience.
• You should let your reader know your bias, but do not let that bias blind you to the primary components of good argumentation: sound, thoughtful evidence and respectfully and reasonably addressing opposing ideas.
• You should be mindful of the use of I in your writing because it can make your argument sound more biased than it needs to.
• Facts are statements that can be proven using objective data.
• Opinions are personal views, or judgments, that cannot be proven.
• In writing, you want to strike a balance between credible facts and authoritative opinions.
• Quantitative visuals present data graphically. The purpose of using quantitative visuals is to make logical appeals to the audience.
• Qualitative visuals present images that appeal to the audience’s emotions.
• Provided by : Lumen Learning. Located at : http://lumenlearning.com/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Successful Writing. Provided by : Anonymous. Located at : http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/successful-writing/s14-09-persuasion.html . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Successful Writing. Authored by : Anonymous. Provided by : Anonymous. Located at : http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/successful-writing/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Table of Contents

Instructor Resources (Access Requires Login)

• Overview of Instructor Resources

An Overview of the Writing Process

• Introduction to the Writing Process
• Introduction to Writing
• Your Role as a Learner
• What is an Essay?
• Reading to Write
• Defining the Writing Process
• Videos: Prewriting Techniques
• Thesis Statements
• Organizing an Essay
• Creating Paragraphs
• Conclusions
• Editing and Proofreading
• Matters of Grammar, Mechanics, and Style
• Peer Review Checklist
• Comparative Chart of Writing Strategies

Using Sources

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Formatting the Works Cited Page (MLA)
• Citing Paraphrases and Summaries (APA)
• APA Citation Style, 6th edition: General Style Guidelines

Definition Essay

• Definitional Argument Essay
• How to Write a Definition Essay
• Critical Thinking
• Video: Thesis Explained
• Effective Thesis Statements
• Student Sample: Definition Essay

Narrative Essay

• Introduction to Narrative Essay
• Student Sample: Narrative Essay
• "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell
• "Sixty-nine Cents" by Gary Shteyngart
• Video: The Danger of a Single Story
• How to Write an Annotation
• How to Write a Summary
• Writing for Success: Narration

Illustration/Example Essay

• Introduction to Illustration/Example Essay
• "She's Your Basic L.O.L. in N.A.D" by Perri Klass
• "April & Paris" by David Sedaris
• Writing for Success: Illustration/Example
• Student Sample: Illustration/Example Essay

Compare/Contrast Essay

• Introduction to Compare/Contrast Essay
• "Disability" by Nancy Mairs
• "Friending, Ancient or Otherwise" by Alex Wright
• "A South African Storm" by Allison Howard
• Writing for Success: Compare/Contrast
• Student Sample: Compare/Contrast Essay

Cause-and-Effect Essay

• Introduction to Cause-and-Effect Essay
• "Cultural Baggage" by Barbara Ehrenreich
• "Women in Science" by K.C. Cole
• Writing for Success: Cause and Effect
• Student Sample: Cause-and-Effect Essay

Argument Essay

• Introduction to Argument Essay
• Rogerian Argument
• "The Case Against Torture," by Alisa Soloman
• "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin
• How to Write a Summary by Paraphrasing Source Material
• Student Sample: Argument Essay
• Grammar/Mechanics Mini-lessons
• Mini-lesson: Subjects and Verbs, Irregular Verbs, Subject Verb Agreement
• Mini-lesson: Sentence Types
• Mini-lesson: Fragments I
• Mini-lesson: Run-ons and Comma Splices I
• Mini-lesson: Comma Usage
• Mini-lesson: Parallelism
• Mini-lesson: The Apostrophe
• Mini-lesson: Capital Letters
• Grammar Practice - Interactive Quizzes
• De Copia - Demonstration of the Variety of Language
• Style Exercise: Voice

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Health Care — Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care Essay Examples

Writing an essay about Universal Health Care can help you understand the issues and come up with solutions to improve healthcare for all. It's a hot topic that needs attention, so why not dive into it and make a difference with your words?

So, you want to write an essay about Universal Health Care, but you're not sure where to start? Don't worry, I've got your back. When choosing a topic for your essay, think about what aspect of Universal Health Care interests you the most. It could be the ethical implications, the economic impact, or the accessibility for all. Once you've found your focus, you can start brainstorming ideas for your essay.

Now, let's talk about the different types of essays you can write about Universal Health Care. If you're into debating and presenting different viewpoints, an argumentative essay might be right up your alley. For those who like to explore the causes and effects of an issue, a cause and effect essay could be a great choice. If you want to express your personal thoughts and feelings, an opinion essay might be the way to go. And if you're all about providing facts and information, an informative essay could be your best bet.

Let's say you're ready to dive into writing your essay. You might be wondering how to structure it and what to include. Well, let me give you a few examples. For a thesis statement on Universal Health Care, you could focus on topics like the impact of Universal Health Care on the economy, the ethical implications of providing healthcare for all, or the importance of accessibility to healthcare services. And when it comes to the , you could start by discussing the current state of healthcare and then lead into your thesis statement. Finally, for the , you could summarize your main points and reiterate the importance of Universal Health Care for the well-being of society. With these examples, you'll be well on your way to writing a stellar essay on Universal Health Care.

The Impact of Household Cleaning Products on Health and The Environment

Combatting health care disparities, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Universal Health Care: Persuasive Speech Outline

The benefits of universal health care for the united states, a discussion on universal health care, financial factors that influence healthcare, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Mental Health Promotion

Health programe and its model, universal healthcare around the world and the opportunities it brings, how america benefits from joining the universal healthcare, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Debate Over Free Healthcare Ans Universal Healthcare in America

Having a healthier lifestyle, possible effect of changes in the aca on the market power of healthcare providers, health and social care, the negative effects of the current health care reform bill, investigation of the universal definition of health, patient satisfaction survey, the social determinants of health and its influence on indigenous people’s health in canada, health monitoring and disease prediction system, new medical policy & people's health, current developments in diagnostic methods of concussions, healthcare finance cost allocation, why and how healthcare marketing should develop patient personas, typical errors on the part of doctors, how to solve the problem of nursing turnover within the american healthcare system, impact of telemedicine in the health sector, the need to raise more awareness about mental health, enhancing healthcare access: a south african perspective, foundations of responsive caregiving: infants, toddlers, and twos, ecommerce on healthcare sector, relevant topics.

• Affordable Care Act
• Healthcare Crisis
• Nursing Care Plan
• Health Care Policy
• Eating Disorders

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Political Debates Over Health Care Go Back Decades

The debate over government's role in health care has been all-consuming recently. But it's not for the first time. Democrats and Republicans have been at odds on this issue for decades.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

Dr. Howard Markel Dr. Howard Markel

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/november-19-1945-harry-truman-calls-national-health-insurance-program

69 years ago, a president pitches his idea for national health care

This past July 30, we celebrated the 49th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid . Readers of this column will recall it was on that date in 1965 when President Lyndon Baines Johnson formally signed these two programs into law in Independence, Missouri, as former president Harry S. Truman and his steadfast wife, Bess, looked on with pride. As LBJ handed “Give ‘Em Hell Harry” and Bess the pens he used to affix his signature to the document, the President proclaimed Mr. Truman as “the real daddy of Medicare.”

President Harry S. Truman proposed a universal health care program in 1945. Photo by Edmonston Studio — The Library of Congress

Today marks the reason why LBJ bestowed such presidential credit to Harry Truman.

Back in 1945 — a mere seven months into a presidency he inherited from Franklin D. Roosevelt — Truman proposed a “universal” national health insurance program. In his remarks to Congress, he declared, “Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection.”

69 years ago, President Truman outlined five critical goals of national health .

The first was to address the number and disparity of physicians, nurses and other health professionals, especially in low-income and rural communities where there were “no adequate facilities for the practice of medicine” and “the earning capacity of the people in some communities makes it difficult if not impossible for doctors who practice there to make a living.” To begin to correct this problem, Truman wanted the federal government to construct modern, quality hospital across the nation—especially where they did not yet exist.

The second issue was the need to develop and bolster public health services (both to control the spread of infectious diseases and improve sanitary conditions across the nation) and maternal and child health care. With respect to the latter, Harry Truman reminded Congress, “the health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility.”

Third, he sought to increase the nation’s investment in both medical research and medical education.

The fourth problem addressed the high cost of individual medical care. “The principal reason why people do not receive the care they need,” Truman noted, “is that they cannot afford to pay for it on an individual basis at the time they need it. This is true not only for needy persons. It is also true for a large proportion of normally self-supporting persons.”

And fifth, he focused on the lost earnings that inevitably occur when serious illness strikes. “Sickness,” Truman cogently explained, “not only brings doctor bills; it also cuts off income.

Not surprisingly, it was President Truman’s proposal to fix the 4th and 5th problems with a national health insurance plan that provoked the loudest opposition. Truman proposed that every wage earning American pay monthly fees or taxes to cover the cost of all medical expenses in time of illness. The plan also called for a cash balance to be paid to policyholders, in the event of injury or illness, to replace the income those individuals lost.

His measured and careful description of the plan merits quoting:

“Under the plan I suggest, our people would continue to get medical and hospital services just as they do now — on the basis of their own voluntary decisions and choices. Our doctors and hospitals would continue to deal with disease with the same professional freedom as now. There would, however, be this all-important difference: whether or not patients get the services they need would not depend on how much they can afford to pay at the time…None of this is really new. The American people are the most insurance-minded people in the world. They will not be frightened off from health insurance because some people have misnamed it ‘socialized medicine.’ I repeat — what I am recommending is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine means that all doctors work as employees of government. The American people want no such system. No such system is here proposed.”

The Truman plan was quickly converted into a Social Security expansion bill sponsored by Sens. Robert Wagner (D-NY) and James Murray (D-MT) and Rep. John Dingell Sr. (D-MI). A version of this bill had been proposed in 1943, when FDR was still president, but died in committee both because of the pressures of the war and the lack of presidential pressure on Congress.

At first, things looked somewhat rosy for the reinvigorated 1945 bill: the Democrats still controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate and a number of prominent Americans vociferously supported it. Still, the nation was weary from war, the high taxes necessary to pay for FDR’s New Deal, and what many Americans perceived to be a too intrusive federal government.

Almost as soon as the reinvigorated bill was announced, the once-powerful American Medical Association (AMA) capitalized on the nation’s paranoia over the threat of Communism and, despite Truman’s assertions to the contrary, attacked the bill as “socialized medicine.” Even more outrageous, the AMA derided the Truman administration as “followers of the Moscow party line.” During congressional hearings in 1946, the AMA proposed its own plan emphasizing private insurance options, which actually represented a political shift from its previous position opposing any third party members in the delivery of health care.

Another historical actor entering the fray was Senator Robert Taft (R-OH), who introduced the Taft-Smith-Ball bill, which called for matching grants to states to subsidize private health insurance for the needy. Although the AMA supported this bill, Truman was against it because he believed it would halt the political progress he had made in guaranteeing every American health insurance.

Hearings and politics continued through 1946 but little progress was made. During the midterm elections of 1946, the Republicans regained control of both the Senate and the House for the first time since 1929, making the bill a dead issue.

Harry Truman continued to make health insurance a major issue of his campaign platform in 1948 and specifically castigated the AMA for calling his plan “un-American”:

“I put it to you, it is un-American to visit the sick, aid the afflicted or comfort the dying? I thought that was simple Christianity.”

Truman famously fooled the pollsters by winning re-election in 1948 and even the Congress was restored to Democratic control that fall. But this political power was no match for the AMA’s redoubled lobbying and advertising efforts, which were endorsed by more than 1,800 national organizations, including the American Bar Association, the American Legion and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Public support waned — and the bill quietly died (again) — as the middle class purchased private health insurance plans, labor unions began collectively bargaining for their members’ health benefits, and the advent of the Korean War.

Truman later called the failure to pass a national health insurance program one of the most bitter and troubling disappointments in his presidency. He must have been overjoyed in 1965 to watch Lyndon Johnson enact a health insurance plan for the elderly and the needy. Nevertheless, the nation would have to wait another 45 years before the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, a law that remains in jeopardy after Nov. 7, when the U.S. Supreme Court took on still another legal challenge to its constitutionality . That said, many would insist there remains a great more work to do to make health care affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Dr. Howard Markel writes a monthly column for the PBS NewsHour, highlighting momentous historical events that continue to shape modern medicine. He is the director of the Center for the History of Medicine and the George E. Wantz Distinguished Professor of the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan and the author of “The Secret of Life:  Rosalind Franklin, James Watson, Francis Crick and the Discovery of DNA’s Double Helix” (W.W. Norton, September ’21).

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

📕 Studying HQ

Argumentative essay on universal healthcare – best student’s sample essay(2022), dr. wilson mn.

• March 16, 2022

This article provides a student’s sample essay on Argumentative Essay On Universal Healthcare in the United States.

Permalink: https://studyinghq.com/argumentative-essay-on-universal-healthcare

Thestudycorp.com has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order  with us.

Disclaimer: This is a sample essay written by a student and not one of our professional nursing writers. It is meant to be used as just an example to other students.

What You'll Learn

Universal Healthcare in the United States- Argumentative Essay On Universal Healthcare

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are due to a lack of health insurance, according to a study published by the  American Journal of Public Health , more than doubling an estimate from the  Institute of Medicine  in 2002 (Cecere). Forty-five thousand people per year are the same as 120 people per day, or 5 people per hour dying because they do not have health insurance. More people die every year from not having health insurance than people dying of kidney disease (Wilper, Woolhandler, and Lasser). The United States has the power to bring this number down drastically if it were to provide basic healthcare insurance to all its citizens. The United States was built on beliefs of self-reliance and sustainability, and when the constitution states, “promote the general Welfare,” it is further fortifying these beliefs. The bible says in Mark 12:31 “love your neighbor as yourself.” Children are taught to love, not fight, to help, not hurt, to fix, not break. Healthcare is a human right, and denying that right is unconstitutional, unethical, and inhumane.

Universal healthcare is defined by the World Health Organization as a system in which every citizen can receive health services, without incurring financial hardship. The United States should provide basic healthcare to every citizen, regardless of income or health status. Basic healthcare includes physical healthcare, as well as mental healthcare. If a person were to experience a traumatic event, such as a car crash, they should be provided first with immediate medical care, which is already standard, but the person should also be provided counseling or therapy if a psychiatrist deems necessary. Poor mental health is leading to other significant problems in America such as school shootings, a high suicide rate, and the opioid epidemic. Poor mental health can stem from a traumatic event or a series of traumatic events, and if a person does not receive care for their mental health, it could potentially put others in danger.

The United States must provide healthcare to all its citizens because it is what the American people want. Universal healthcare in the United States would have a positive effect globally, economically, politically, and socially. In the last elections, the number one issue for voters was access to affordable healthcare. All races and genders, except for black women- who said healthcare was the 2nd most important issue behind racial injustice- cite healthcare as their foremost priority (H. S. Edwards). In a recent survey, 70 percent of Americans, including a slim majority of Republican voters, support some version of the universal healthcare proposal Medicare for all. Medicare for all has been turning into the “Preserve-and-Fix” method. The “Preserve-and-Fix” method is the idea to take the Affordable Care Act, which was put in place by former President Barack Obama, preserve the parts that are working, and fix the parts that are not. American citizen and business owner Kevin Johnson put this into words in an interview with TIME magazine when he said, “I’m saying, let’s keep the parts that work and fix the parts that don’t.” The current Trump administration is heading toward giving states the right to do whatever they want with the ACA. This is a step in the right direction, but if any real change is going to be made, it is going to have to come from the federal government.

As you continue, thestudycorp.com has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order  with us. (Argumentative Essay On Universal Healthcare)

Republican candidates, including 2020 presidential hopefuls, have begun to take back their promises to repeal the ACA. Dave Joyce, a representative from Ohio, voted to abolish the ACA 31 times, but most recently he voted to keep it. Dave Joyce is not an anomaly; Republican representatives and senators alike have begun to vote to keep, or “Preserve-and-Fix” the ACA, despite their previous promises. The ACA is not perfect, as Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation puts it, “it’s fair to say it has failed middle-income Americans.” The ACA was an effort to help the people who needed it, but it did some damage to others in the process. Since 2008, the average family’s health insurance premium has increased 55 percent, and deductibles have tripled (S. H. Edwards). When the ACA was passed in 2010, it was partially an attempt to slow these rising figures, as well as protect those with pre-existing conditions and provide necessary healthcare to people who could not get it. The ACA did a few of these things including helping 20 million people get health insurance through Medicaid expansions and federal subsidies, but it did very little to help slow the rising cost of health insurance for middle-income Americans.

One of the main arguments against universal healthcare in the United States is insurance companies would lose revenue, and the government would have too much control over our healthcare, straying from capitalism and creating a socialist state. Insurance companies would not lose revenue because they could be given the right to provide more luxurious levels of healthcare than what the government provides, like elective or cosmetic operations and prescriptions. The government’s universal healthcare program could provide a “base layer” of healthcare, while insurance companies could create optional, cost-effective plans that would cover things such as elective surgeries and office visits. This would promote insurance sales and create new revenue for insurance companies, driving sales and promoting capitalism. Another option for the government would be to run their healthcare program through insurance companies, which would help the insurance companies gain revenue, as well as stay away from having too much government control and creating a socialist state. In France, the government has a universal healthcare system, but 90 percent of French citizens own health insurance above what is provided by the government to the other 10 percent in medical emergencies (Gawande).

Universal healthcare critics have also been claiming it will create a drastic increase in taxes and will only worsen the situation for middle-income Americans. If the government elected to run their program through insurance agencies, the funding necessary for the program would be much lower than if they were to do it by themselves through taxation. The current Trump administration has a focus on lowering taxes, and if they were to adopt a universal healthcare plan, they would more than likely choose the less taxing plan. With this critique comes the argument that it will increase the government debt because they will need to provide funding. In 2013, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that a plan like the “Preserve-and-Fix” plan would reduce the federal deficit by $158 billion over the next decade. Universal healthcare would have positive effects economically in our nation, and in our relations with other countries.

Over $2 trillion is spent every year on healthcare and medicine in the United States; $600 billion of that is administrative costs (Gawande). A new proposal for healthcare could realign these expenditures and balance them as much as possible. The Canadian government is more efficient with healthcare spending; they spend 10 percent of their GDP on healthcare and provide full health coverage for all citizens. The United States spends about 14 percent of its GDP on healthcare, but 45 million Americans have no health insurance, and many more have limited coverage (Jackson Jr.). In 2007, 57 million Americans had difficulty paying their medical bills, up 14 million from 2003. Employers are dropping healthcare because they do not have enough money to provide healthcare policies to their employees. This has even been affecting hospitals; half of the American hospitals operated at a loss in 2007 (Jackson Jr.). Nobody has solved the rising cost of health insurance, but some countries have slowed it more effectively than the United States. Optimizing healthcare spending would go a long way to fixing our current healthcare issue and slow rising costs.

Every developed country compared to the United States has some form of a universal healthcare system. Universal healthcare began in Germany in 1883 and has spread out from there (Formosa). The universal healthcare systems the United States would most likely model a system after are Canada and France. Canada converted to a universal healthcare system in 1984 under the Canada Health Act, and France converted in 1945, at the conclusion of World War II. Similar to the “Preserve-and-Fix” solution, which proposes solutions from within, the “Preserve-and-Copy” solution proposes to keep what works from the ACA, and simply “copy” other countries’ practices, such as Canada and France. As stated before, even though France has a universal healthcare system in place, 90 percent of its citizens own healthcare insurance on top of what the government provides to them. Successful universal healthcare systems in countries like France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Canada, incorporate capitalistic mechanisms to maintain itself like competition, market prices, and consumer choice to prevent too much government control and provide funding for the program. The United States would need to keep this at the forefront of their proposal to adopt a universal healthcare system if they want it to be successful. “Therefore, if there is a lesson which U.S. policymakers can take from National Health Care systems around the world, it is not to follow the road to government-run national health care, but to increase consumer incentives and control.” (Tanner)  As Michael D. Tanner states here, government-run healthcare is not the solution to our recurring issue, but government-backed healthcare is necessary to solve the issue. The United States would want to stay away from a system like Britain’s nationally-run service and would want to model more after a system like France in which all physicians practice under nationwide public health insurance. The government would not own the health insurance, then, but a public, government-funded insurance service would cover physicians.

 The mental illness issue in America is on the rise, creating issues such as the high suicide rate and school shootings. Nearly one in five American adults lives with a mental illness, with a reported 44.7 million in 2016 (NIMH). The National Institute of Mental Health divides mental illnesses into two categories: mental illness and serious mental illness. Mental illness is defined as a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder. Serious mental illness is defined as a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder resulting in serious functional impairment, which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities. To have a real effect on helping mental health, a universal healthcare system would have to cover serious mental illness. This number of mental illnesses is not going to go down anytime soon either, as it is most prevalent among young adults aged 18-25. The best chance America will have with aiding people with mental illness will be to provide them the chance to get help with their problem because if it is unaffordable for someone to get help, there is a very slim chance they will get help. Reducing mental illness will also increase productivity in every area of our nation, simply because it is one less thing about which these people have to worry. An increase in productivity will make our country more efficient, and that will reflect positively on President Trump and would raise his approval rating, who is currently scoring poorly on the healthcare aspect of his presidency.

 Universal healthcare critics have begun an argument that has been gaining traction recently which is that implementation in the United States would be extremely difficult, or even impossible. In a plan proposed by dozens of top Democrats, including several 2020 presidential hopefuls, the solution for implementation in America would be to provide the care given to people 65 and over, to everyone (Salyer). Another option could be, as stated before, to copy a successful foreign system such as Canada or France. These systems have been put into the world and serviced developed countries very similar to the United States so it is proven they would work. This is further proven by the fact that France’s health insurance costs $2,600 less per capita than the current cost of the United States, disproving the counterclaim that universal healthcare would be more expensive.

 The United States is making a mistake by not adopting a universal healthcare plan. The government has multiple options for implementing a universal healthcare plan including “Preserve-and-Fix,” “Preserve-and-Copy,” and Medicare for all. They could also run their program through insurance companies, or create a “base layer” and allow insurance companies to provide plans above that. Implementation in the U.S. would be difficult, but not impossible. The government should also implement universal healthcare because it would benefit the United States globally, economically, politically, and societally. More specifically, universal healthcare has been proven to work in other countries, it would help to slow rising costs of health insurance, the mental illness issue would decline, and it is what American citizens want.

Argumentative Essay On Universal Healthcare – Works Cited

• Cecere, David. “The Harvard Gazette.” 17 September 2009.  Harvard News.  11 December 2018. .
• Edwards, Sweetland Haley. “The Health Care Voters.”  TIME  12 November 2018: 41.
• “Formosa.” 17 March 2018.  Formosa Post.  12 November 2018. .
• Gawande, Atul. “The United States Can Achieve Universal Health Care Without Dismantling the Existing Health Care System.”  Universal Health Care . Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. 190.
• Jackson Jr., Jesse L. “The United States Should Guarantee the Right to Health Care Through a Constitutional Amendment.” Grover, Jan.  Healthcare . Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. 28.
• “NIMH.” November 2017.  National Institute of Mental Health.  12 December 2018. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml
• Salyer, Kirsten. “TIME.” 1 July 2016.  TIME Web Site.  5 November 2018.
• Tanner, Michael D. “CATO.” 23 February 2009.  CATO Institute.  12 November 2018. .
• Wilper, Andrew P., et al. “U.S. National Library of Medicine.” December 2009.  U.S. National Library of Medicine.  11 December 2018.

Related FAQs

1. What are the pros and cons of universal health care in the US?

Pros: An all-payer system comes with tight regulation and offers the government similar cost control to socialized medicine. Cons: The all-payer system relies on an overall healthy population, as a greater prevalence of sick citizens will drain the “sickness fund” at a much faster rate.

2. Why universal healthcare is important?

UHC strategies enable everyone to access the services that address the most significant causes of disease and death and ensures that the quality of those services is good enough to improve the health of the people who receive them.

3. What are the 3 pillars of universal coverage?

The guide aims to share specific tools to help you call on policy and decision makers to focus on improving any and all of the three pillars of Healthy systems for universal health coverage – a joint vision for healthy lives (joint vision): service delivery, health financing and governance.

4. What are the benefits of universal health care in the Philippines?

All Filipinos will have access to preventive, promotive, curative, rehabilitative, and palliative care, with primary care services a priority. All Filipinos are guaranteed zero copayments for basic/ward accommodations and will pay a fixed copayment for nonbasic admissions in public hospitals.

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business StudyingHq Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Samples

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Free College Essay Examples
• Privacy Policy
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• How to Guides
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved