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
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 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.
Should the U.S. Government Provide Universal Health Care?
- History of Universal Health Care
27.5 million non-elderly Americans did not have health insurance in 2021, a decline from 28.9 million uninsured Americans in 2019. The largest group of Americans, almost 155 million non-elderly people, were covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. Less than 1% of Americans over 65 were uninsured, thanks to Medicaid, a government provided insurance for people over 65 years old.
The United States is the only nation among the 37 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations that does not have universal health care either in practice or by constitutional right. Read more background…
Pro & Con Arguments
Pro 1 The United States already has universal health care for some. The government should expand the system to protect everyone. A national health insurance is a universal health care that “uses public insurance to pay for private-practice care. Every citizen pays into the national insurance plan. Administrative costs are lower because there is one insurance company. The government also has a lot of leverage to force medical costs down,” according to economic expert Kimberly Amadeo. Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea all have national health insurance. In the United States, Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE function similarly. [ 178 ] Medicare is the “federal health insurance program for: people who are 65 or older, certain younger people with disabilities, [and] people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).” Patients pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part B (general health coverage). The 2023 standard Part B monthly premium is $164.90. Patients also contribute to drug costs via Medicare Part D. Most people do not pay a premium for Medicare Part A (“inpatient hospital stays, care in a skilled nursing facility, hospice care, and some home health care”). More than 65.3 million people were enrolled in Medicare according to Feb. 2023 government data. [ 180 ] [ 181 ] Medicaid “provides health coverage to millions of Americans, including eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities. Medicaid is administered by states, according to federal requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government.” More than 84.8 million people were enrolled in Medicaid as of Nov. 2022. [ 181 ] [ 182 ] [ 183 ] The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), often lumped in with Medicaid in these discussions, is a “low-cost health coverage to children in families that earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid. In some states, CHIP covers pregnant women. Each state offers CHIP coverage, and works closely with its state Medicaid program.” CHIP covers more than 6.9 million patients. [ 181 ] [ 182 ] [ 183 ] TRICARE is the “military health system that provides care to almost 10 million active-duty service members, retired personnel, and their families.” Active-duty military members pay $0 for health insurance, while retired members and their families paid a premium up to $1,165 per month (for a member and family) in 2021. [ 184 ] The United States already successfully maintains universal health care for almost 36% of the U.S. population, according to U.S. Census data released in Sep. 2022. As the Baby Boomer generation continues to age and more of the generation becomes eligible for Medicare, estimates suggest about 73.5 million people will use Medcare and about 47% of American health care costs will be paid for by public health services by 2027. [ 185 ] [ 186 ] If the government can successfully provide universal health care for 36% to almost 50% of the population, then the government can provide univeral health care for the rest of the population who are just as in need and deserving of leading healthy lives. Read More
Pro 2 Universal health care would lower costs and prevent medical bankruptcy. A June 2022 study found the United States could have saved $105.6 billion in COVID-19 (coronavirus) hospitalization costs with single-payer universal health care during the pandemic. That potential savings is on top of the estimated $438 billion the researchers estimated could be saved annually with universal health care in a non-pandemic year. [ 198 ] “Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households,” conclude researchers from the Yale School of Public Health and colleagues. [ 201 ] According to the National Bankruptcy Forum, medical debt is the number one reason people file for bankruptcy in the United States. In 2017, about 33% of all Americans with medical bills reported that they “were unable to pay for basic necessities like food, heat, or housing.” If all Americans were provided health care under a single-payer system medical bankruptcy would no longer exist, because the government, not private citizens, would pay all medical bills. [ 131 ] Further, prescription drug costs would drop between 4% and 31%, according to five cost estimates gathered by New York Times reporters. 24% of people taking prescription drugs reported difficulty affording the drugs, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll. 58% of people whose drugs cost more than $100 a month, 49% of people in fair or poor health, 35% of those with annual incomes of less than $40,000, and 35% of those taking four or more drugs monthly all reported affordability issues. [ 197 ] [ 199 ] [ 200 ] Additionally, 30% of people aged 50 to 64 reported cost issues because they generally take more drugs than younger people but are not old enough to qualify for Medicare drug benefits. With 79% of Americans saying prescription drug costs are “unreasonable,” and 70% reporting lowering prescription drug costs as their highest healthcare priority, lowering the cost of prescription drugs would lead to more drug-compliance and lives not only bettered, but saved as a result. [ 197 ] [ 199 ] [ 200 ] Read More
Pro 3 Universal health care would improve individual and national health outcomes. Since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the public health, economic and moral repercussions of widespread dependence on employer-sponsored insurance, the most common source of coverage for working-age Americans…. Business closures and restrictions led to unemployment for more than 9 million individuals following the emergence of COVID-19. Consequently, many Americans lost their healthcare precisely at a time when COVID-19 sharply heightened the need for medical services,” argue researchers from the Yale School of Public Health and colleagues. The researchers estimated more than 131,000 COVID-19 (coronavirus) deaths and almost 78,000 non-COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented with universal health care in 2020 alone. [ 198 ] Another study finds a change to “single-payer health care would… save more than 68,000 lives and 1.73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.” [ 201 ] Meanwhile, more people would be able to access much-needed health care. A Jan. 2021 study concludes that universal health care would increase outpatient visits by 7% to 10% and hospital visits by 0% to 3%, which are modest increases when compared to saved and lengthened lives. [ 202 ] Other studies find that universal health coverage is linked to longer life expectancy, lower child mortality rates, higher smoking cessation rates, lower depression rates, and a higher general sense of well-being, with more people reporting being in “excellent health.” Further, universal health care leads to appropriate use of health care facilities, including lower rates of emergency room visits for non-emergencies and a higher use of preventative doctors’ visits to manage chronic conditions. [ 203 ] [ 204 ] [ 205 ] An American Hospital Association report argues, the “high rate of uninsured [patients] puts stress on the broader health care system. People without insurance put off needed care and rely more heavily on hospital emergency departments, resulting in scarce resources being directed to treat conditions that often could have been prevented or managed in a lower-cost setting. Being uninsured also has serious financial implications for individuals, communities and the health care system.” [ 205 ] Read More
Con 1 Universal health care for everyone in the United States promises only government inefficiency and health care that ignores the realities of the country and the free market. In addition to providing universal health care for the elderly, low-income individuals, children in need, and military members (and their families), the United States has the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, formerly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), or Obamacare, which ensures that Americans can access affordable health care. the ACA allows Americans to chose the coverage appropriate to their health conditions and incomes. [ 187 ] Veterans’ Affairs, which serves former military members, is an example of a single-payer health care provider, and one that has repeatedly failed its patients. For example, a computer error at the Spokane VA hospital “failed to deliver more than 11,000 orders for specialty care, lab work and other services – without alerting health care providers the orders had been lost.” [ 188 ] [ 189 ] Elizabeth Hovde, Policy Analyst and Director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights, argues, “The VA system is not only costly with inconsistent medical care results, it’s an American example of a single-payer, government-run system. We should run from the attempts in our state to decrease competition in the health care system and increase government dependency, leaving our health care at the mercy of a monopolistic system that does not need to be timely or responsive to patients. Policymakers should give veterans meaningful choices among private providers, clinics and hospitals, so vets can choose their own doctors and directly access quality care that meets their needs. Best of all, when the routine break-downs of a government-run system threaten to harm them again, as happened in Spokane, veterans can take their well-earned health benefit and find help elsewhere.” [ 188 ] [ 189 ] Further, the challenges of universal health care implementation are vastly different in the U.S. than in other countries, making the current patchwork of health care options the best fit for the country. As researchers summarize, “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. Thus, critics of universal healthcare in the U.S. argue that implementation would not be as feasible—organizationally or financially—as other developed nations.” [ 190 ] And, such a system in the United States would hinder medical innovation and entrepreneurship. “Government control is a large driver of America’s health care problems. Bureaucrats can’t revolutionize health care – only entrepreneurs can. By empowering health care entrepreneurs, we can create an American health care system that is more affordable, accessible, and productive for all,” explains Wayne Winegarden, Senior Fellow in Business and Economics, and Director of the Center for Medical Economics and Innovation at Pacific Research Institute. [ 190 ] [ 191 ] Read More
Con 2 Universal health care would raise costs for the federal government and, in turn, taxpayers. Medicare-for-all, a recent universal health care proposal championed by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), would cost an estimated $30 to $40 trillion over ten years. The cost would be the largest single increase to the federal budget ever. [ 192 ] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that by 2030 federal health care subsidies will increase by $1.5 to $3.0 trillion. The CBO concludes, “Because the single-payer options that CBO examined would greatly increase federal subsidies for health care, the government would need to implement new financing mechanisms—such as raising existing taxes or introducing new ones, reducing certain spending, or issuing federal debt. As an example, if the government required employers to make contributions toward the cost of health insurance under a single-payer system that would be similar to their contributions under current law, it would have to impose new taxes.” [ 193 ] Despite claims by many, the cost of Medicare for All, or any other universal health care option, could not be financed solely by increased taxes on the wealthy. “[T]axes on the middle class would have to rise in order to pay for it. Those taxes could be imposed directly on workers, indirectly through taxes on employers or consumption, or through a combination of direct or indirect taxes. There is simply not enough available revenue from high earners and businesses to cover the full cost of eliminating premiums, ending all cost-sharing, and expanding coverage to all Americans and for (virtually) all health services,” says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. [ 195 ] An analysis of the Sanders plan “estimates that the average annual cost of the plan would be approximately $2.5 trillion per year creating an average of over a $1 trillion per year financing shortfall. To fund the program, payroll and income taxes would have to increase from a combined 8.4 percent in the Sanders plan to 20 percent while also retaining all remaining tax increases on capital gains, increased marginal tax rates, the estate tax and eliminating tax expenditures…. Overall, over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single payer plan than they do for health insurance today.” [ 196 ] Read More
Con 3 Universal health care would increase wait times for basic care and make Americans’ health worse. The Congressional Budget Office explains, “A single-payer system with little cost sharing for medical services would lead to increased demand for care in the United States because more people would have health insurance and because those already covered would use more services. The extent to which the supply of care would be adequate to meet that increased demand would depend on various factors, such as the payment rates for providers and any measures taken to increase supply. If coverage was nearly universal, cost sharing was very limited, and the payment rates were reduced compared with current law, the demand for medical care would probably exceed the supply of care–with increased wait times for appointments or elective surgeries, greater wait times at doctors’ offices and other facilities, or the need to travel greater distances to receive medical care. Some demand for care might be unmet.” [ 207 ] 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. Similarly, average waiting time for elective hospital-based care in the United Kingdom is 46 days, while some patients wait over a year. 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. [ 17 ] [ 190 ] Joshua W. Axene of Axene Health Partners, LLC “wonder[s] if Americans really could function under a system that is budget based and would likely have increased waiting times. In America we have created a healthcare culture that pays providers predominantly on a Fee for Service basis (FFS) and allows people to get what they want, when they want it and generally from whoever they want. American healthcare culture always wants the best thing available and has a ‘more is better’ mentality. Under a government sponsored socialized healthcare system, choice would become more limited, timing mandated, and supply and demand would be controlled through the constraints of a healthcare budget…. As much as Americans believe that they are crockpots and can be patient, we are more like microwaves and want things fast and on our own terms. Extended waiting lines will not work in the American system and would decrease the quality of our system as a whole.” [ 206 ] Read More
Did You Know? |
---|
1. 27.5 million non-elderly Americans did not have health insurance in 2021, a decline from 28.9 million uninsured Americans in 2019. [ ] [ ] |
2. Researchers estimated more than 131,000 COVID-19 (coronavirus) deaths and almost 78,000 non-COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented with universal health care in 2020 alone. [ ] |
3. 88% of Democrats and 59% of Independents agreed that "it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage," while only 28% of Republicans agreed. [ ] |
4. The United States is the only nation among the 37 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations that does not have universal health care either in practice or by constitutional right. [ ] |
5. U.S. health care spending rose 2.7% in 2021 to a total of $4.3 trillion nationally and accounted for 18.3% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). [ ] [ ] [ ] |
More Health Debates |
---|
Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)
ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA
Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]
© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved
- Right to Health Care – Pros & Cons
- Pro & Con Quotes
- Did You know?
- Six US-Signed Treaties and Declarations Recognizing a Right to Health Care
Cite This Page
- Artificial Intelligence
- Private Prisons
- Space Colonization
- Social Media
- Death Penalty
- School Uniforms
- Video Games
- Animal Testing
- Gun Control
- Banned Books
- Teachers’ Corner
ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):
[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]
[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]
- Social Media
- Pop Culture
- Apply To Write
7 Strong Arguments For Why America Should Have Universal Healthcare
With COVID-19 still running its course and no end in sight, the integrity of American healthcare has never been more important. Is the current system truly the best the United States can do for its citizens? Or is socialized medicine a better alternative? Here are seven strong arguments for universal healthcare in America.
1. Lower Overall Costs
The costs of universal healthcare are far lower in other Western countries than private coverage in the United States. For example, administrative expenses alone make up 8% of the nation’s total healthcare costs . On the other hand, other developed countries with universal care don’t reach any higher than 3%.
What’s more, many Americans don’t seek the care they need because the cost of one visit can bankrupt them. Compared to other countries, prices for vital medicine, such as insulin, are sky-high in the United States. Universal healthcare guarantees service to everyone, no matter their financial status. When medical care isn’t such a financial strain, citizens can prioritize their health and seek the treatment they need.
2. Greater Hospital-Patient Trust
One disturbing reason American healthcare is so expensive is the trend of surprise billing. A routine surgery or treatment can cost thousands of dollars more than expected due to additional vague charges. You can even face a hefty fee just for sitting in a waiting room. The U.S. government has made some efforts to fix this problem , but private medical facilities have managed to find loopholes in the legislation.
Universal healthcare takes the billing power away from these facilities, creating more trust between hospital and patient: Payment comes in the form of taxes. While nobody likes to pay more taxes, it’s fairer to pay a fixed amount every year than receive a debilitating hospital bill after one visit.
3. Better Quality Care
The quality of treatment under socialized medicine seems to work better for its citizens than America’s privatized system. Infant mortality rates are lower, average life expectancy is higher and fewer people die from medical malpractice, which happens to be the third-leading cause of death in the United States.
America also has obesity and cardiovascular disease epidemic, which fills up hospitals and leads to many preventable deaths. Comparable countries with universal healthcare have much lower mortality rates. This is because these nations promote more healthy lifestyles , easing the workload on hospitals and opening up space for people who need urgent care.
4. More Coverage
Americans rely on their insurance companies to pay for their medical bills, but insurance doesn’t cover every injury or sickness. As you might expect, many citizens go bankrupt from hospital expenses. In contrast, universal healthcare covers any medical issue that might happen to a citizen. So patients don’t need to worry about any loopholes or caveats in their insurance coverage.
5. Shorter Wait Times
Perhaps the biggest criticism of universal healthcare is the extended wait times, but Americans already have long waits. COVID-19 patients are filling up waiting rooms and hospital beds. Because of that, many doctors have begun to hold virtual appointments for patients who can’t see them in person. Still, this solution has only put a dent in the problem.
Patients under a universal system don’t have to wait for their insurance’s approval before seeking the care they need.
6. Greater Mobility
Since Americans often have to pay their own medical bills, they might feel pressured to keep unfulfilling jobs just for the insurance coverage. So in an ironic twist, they’re forced to put work over their health and well-being just so they can afford healthcare.
Universal healthcare allows you to change jobs without losing coverage. The current privatized system doesn’t embody American values of freedom and liberty. Rather, it restricts their life choices and access to care.
7. Coverage for the Uninsured
Insured citizens at least have access to some healthcare coverage, but the uninsured are entirely on their own. A large percentage of the uninsured have little to no disposable income, and they can’t afford the coverage they need.
Some evidence also suggests that uninsured patients wait longer and receive poorer care than more financially stable patients. As a result, the uninsured have an excess mortality rate of 25% , according to the Institute of Medicine. This negligence is unacceptable and largely avoidable. A universal healthcare system provides its people with care regardless of their insurance status.
America needs universal healthcare. The United States’ private healthcare system has too many glaring flaws to justify its existence. Adopting a universal plan would grant more cost-effective coverage to everyone, including the millions of people who currently can’t afford treatment. A more efficient and trustworthy system would help Americans exercise their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Featured image via CDC on Unsplash
RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR
How To Openly & Effectively Discuss Finances With Your Partner
Women’s Mental Health: Tackling Depression, Anxiety And Coping Strategies
Anyone Can Be A Chef With This Stuffed Pepper Recipe
First Date Red Flags To Spot Before You Even Meet Up
The Toll Comes Due: A Review With Suspense, Supernatural Twists & Strong Characters
The Last Time I Opened My Heart To Someone, I Felt Free
Leave a reply cancel reply.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Send me Unwritten articles please!
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
Stay Connected
Dating problems.
5 Ways To Come Out Stronger After A Heartbreak
10 Messages To Send Your Significant Other’s Parents This Christmas
How To Deal With Jealousy When You Can’t Stop Thinking About...
I Still Look Back To The Days When We Were Only...
Adulting is not easy.
The 10 Top Travel Destinations For 2020 Were Just Released
5 Books You’ll Regret Waiting So Long To Read
4 Simple Changes That Will Make You Stop Being So Negative
Discovery Dispatch: How To Travel To Unknown Places
We're ladies first.
Why I Run Back To You In A Moment Of Weakness
I Sent My Baby To Daycare And They Still Turned Out...
5 Sexist Wedding Traditions We Should Ditch For Good
I Know You Doubt It, But You Deserve So Much Love
Exploring what works, what doesn’t, and why.
Healthcare is a human right – but not in the United States
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Facebook
- Share on WhatsApp
- Share through Email
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson in June is just the latest blow to health rights in the United States. National medical associations in the U.S. agree that abortion is essential to reproductive healthcare. So why would abortion not be protected as such? Because the U.S. does not, and never has, protected a right to health.
Good health is the foundation of a person’s life and liberty. Injury and disease are always disruptive, and sometimes crippling. We might have to stop working, cancel plans, quarantine, hire help, and in cases of long-term disability, build whole new support systems to accommodate a new normal.
The U.S. remains the only high-income nation in the world without universal access to healthcare. However, the U.S. has signed and ratified one of the most widely adopted international treaties that includes the duty to protect the right to life. Under international law, the right to life simply means that humans have a right to live, and that nobody can try to kill another. Healthcare, the United Nations says, is an essential part of that duty. In 2018, the U.N. Committee on Civil and Political Rights said the right to life cannot exist without equal access to affordable healthcare services (including in prisons), mental health services, and notably, access to abortion. The U.N. committee mentioned health more than a dozen times in its statement on the right to life.
Sign up for Harvard Public Health
Delivered to your inbox weekly.
- Email address By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to receive email communications from Harvard Public Health.
- Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
The bottom line is: the U.S. can’t claim to protect life if it fails to protect health. And it has consistently failed on all three of the U.N.’s measures— the latest being access to abortion.
In the U.S., our debates around healthcare, and especially abortion, are hampered by a lack of right to health. Instead, the Supreme Court in 1973 protected access to abortion through the rights to privacy and due process, not health. Privacy is mentioned only twice by the U.N. committee commentary on the right to life.
Since Dobbs, several state legislatures have declared it fair game to criminalize abortion procedures even in cases where pregnancy threatens maternal health or life. Despite ample evidence that restrictive abortion laws lead to spikes in maternal mortality and morbidity—core public health indicators—the Court prior to the Dobb’s decision has defended abortion as merely a matter of privacy, not health or life. We know this is a myth. Abortion is deeply tied to the ability to stay healthy and in some cases, alive.
Regardless, our political parties remain deeply polarized on access to healthcare, including abortion. But lawmakers should know there is historical backing in the U.S. for elevating a right to health. None other than U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, first proposed healthcare as a human right in his State of the Union address in 1944, as part of his ‘Second Bill of Rights.’ His list featured aspirational economic and social guarantees to the American people, like the right to a decent home and, of course, the right to adequate medical care.
Eleanor Roosevelt later took the Second Bill of Rights to the U.N., where it contributed to the right to health being included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The right to health is now accepted international law, and is part of numerous treaties, none of which the U.S. Senate has seen fit to ratify. The U.S. conservative movement has historically declared itself averse to adopting rights that might expand government function and responsibility. In contrast, state legislatures in red states are keen to expand government responsibility when it comes to abortion. The conservative movement condemns government interference in the delivery of healthcare—except when it comes to reproductive health. The American Medical Association has called abortion bans a “direct attack” on medicine, and a “brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”
Excepting access to abortion, U.S. lawmakers have largely left healthcare to the markets, rather than government. True, the government funds programs like Medicaid and Medicare but these programs vary significantly in quality and access by state, falling far short of providing fair, equitable, universal access to good healthcare.
The only two places where the U.S. government accepts some responsibility for the provision of healthcare are 1) in prisons and mental health facilities; and 2) in the military. While healthcare services in the U.S. prison system are notoriously deficient, they nevertheless exist and are recognized as an entitlement, underpinning the right to life. As an example, in 2005 a federal court seized control of the failing healthcare system in California’s Department of Corrections citing preventable deaths. In the military, free healthcare is an entitlement, and the quality of that care is deemed good enough even for the U.S. president.
So why doesn’t everyone in the U.S. have the same rights?
It is an uphill battle in a country that sees health and healthcare as a private matter for markets and individuals to navigate. But if we want to improve public health in the U.S. we need to start legislating healthcare as a right—and recognize that achieving the highest possible standards of public health is a legitimate government function.
photo: Tony Gutierrez / AP Photo
More in Equity
Researchers tried to fix a racist lung test. It got complicated.
No research about us without us?
A Wabanaki organization forges its own approach to addiction treatment
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.
Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate
- October 2020
- Medicina 56(11):580
- University of British Columbia
- This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
- Wake Forest University
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Discover the world's research
- 25+ million members
- 160+ million publication pages
- 2.3+ billion citations
- Khisimusi D Maluleke
- Radiol Bras
- Dante Claudino de Oliveira
- Aylla Batista Moreira Teixeira
- Laura Llamosas-Falcón
- William C. Kerr
- BONE MARROW TRANSPL
- Shaun R. McCann
- E. B. Ochigbo
- Molly T Beinfeld
- Joshua Weiser
- Amny M. Shuraydi
- Jamal A. Yearwood
- Elizabeth B. Kirkland
- Marc Heincelman
- Ysanne Chapman
- Benjamin Rolfe
- Ross Hammond
- Robert Doherty
- Thomas G. Cooney
- Ryan D. Mire
- Jason M. Goldman
- Hilary Daniel
- Lee S. Engel
- Bruce Y Lee
- Recruit researchers
- Join for free
- Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up
Academic Support for Nursing Students
No notifications.
Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a student and not our expert nursing writers. View professional sample essays here.
View full disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NursingAnswers.net. This essay should not be treated as an authoritative source of information when forming medical opinions as information may be inaccurate or out-of-date.
Argumentative Essay On Universal Healthcare
Info: 2468 words (10 pages) Nursing Essay Published: 12th Apr 2021
Reference this
Universal Healthcare in the United States
If you need assistance with writing your nursing essay, our professional nursing essay writing service is here to help!
Our nursing and healthcare experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have, from simple essay plans, through to full nursing dissertations.
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.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related Services
- Nursing Essay Writing Service
- Nursing Dissertation Service
- Reflective Writing Service
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the NursingAnswers.net website then please:
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
- Marking Service
- Samples of our Work
- Full Service Portfolio
Related Lectures
Study for free with our range of nursing lectures!
- Drug Classification
- Emergency Care
- Health Observation
- Palliative Care
- Professional Values
Write for Us
Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher in nursing or healthcare?
Study Resources
Free resources to assist you with your nursing studies!
- APA Citation Tool
- Example Nursing Essays
- Example Nursing Assignments
- Example Nursing Case Studies
- Reflective Nursing Essays
- Nursing Literature Reviews
- Free Resources
- Reflective Model Guides
- Nursing and Healthcare Pay 2021
Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone Essay
Health protection is one of the basic human rights because everyone wants to be healthy. At the same time, assistance in ensuring this health should come from the state as a guarantor of the protection of the person. The right to health is a fundamental aspect of any society; without a health system, this right cannot be fulfilled. Many aspects of similar institutions worldwide are paid, which hinders access to medicine for some people. In this way, a free healthcare system could lead to equality.
First, health care refers to absolute human rights that any state cannot alienate. Thus, by depriving a person of this right, the state violates ethical standards and can significantly harm the health of people who cannot afford paid medicine. A free healthcare system could provide everyone access to basic health services such as prevention, treatment of illness and injury, and access to medicines. Free medical care would help to establish full equality among all groups of the population, thus eliminating many of the divisions that currently exist in society. In this way, people could become much healthier and happier because many health problems would be solved.
The second argument favoring a free healthcare system is the economic factor. This is because healthy citizens can contribute more to the country’s economy. Citizens who are properly healed will be able to feel better, and investigators will be able to work more productively, ultimately leading to increased economic growth. In addition, a free health care system can significantly affect private businesses since companies do not have to invest in payments to constantly provide insurance for citizens. It was possible to include part of this amount instead as a separate tax, and thus both the state and firms could earn more money. Thus, companies will be able to redirect the financial resources of their organizations to the development of their kind of activity. This would increase competition in all sectors of the economy and thus improve the quality of business. Increasing the turnover and revenue of companies can then lead to the payment of large taxes and an improvement in the position of the national economy.
As a counterargument, it can be said that transferring the entire healthcare system to a free regime would create many difficulties both at the transition stage and in the future. Indeed, to fully make medicine accessible, it will be necessary to carry out many reforms that can significantly burden the economy. In addition, many private clinics will also have to be dealt with and either leaves the possibility of such services or transfer them to state dates. Financing all medical institutions from the country’s budget can be complicated and costly. In this regard, it would be necessary to look for additional sources of income to support the economy. However, moving to a free system can result in greater cost savings, as in Canada or the UK.
In conclusion, we can say that the health care system should be accessible and free for all citizens who need help, as this is one of the most important human rights that cannot be neglected. In addition, establishing such state care can help stimulate economic growth since most people who are now in poor health will be able to work. This will help companies develop more intensively and not spend money on paying insurance for employees. There are some downsides to moving to a public system, such as high initial process costs. However, in the future, this can be fully compensated. Based on all the factors considered, it can be concluded that a free healthcare system should be implemented.
- Dealing with Employees' Compensation
- AHIP's Support of Medicare Buy-In Policy
- Taxpayers’ Reaction to Payment of Tax
- Moving Toward Holistic and Preventive Care
- Discussion: Healthcare Payment Options
- Healthcare Cost Depending on Chronic Disease Management of Diabetes and Hypertension
- Reducing Healthcare Spending: Annotated Bibliography
- Costing Effect on Canadian Healthcare After COVID-19
- Billing and Reimbursement in Healthcare
- The Affordable Care Act: Cutting Costs
- Chicago (A-D)
- Chicago (N-B)
IvyPanda. (2024, February 28). Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-healthcare-be-free-for-everyone/
"Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone." IvyPanda , 28 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/should-healthcare-be-free-for-everyone/.
IvyPanda . (2024) 'Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone'. 28 February.
IvyPanda . 2024. "Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-healthcare-be-free-for-everyone/.
1. IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-healthcare-be-free-for-everyone/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-healthcare-be-free-for-everyone/.
- To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
- As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
- As a template for you assignment
IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:
- Basic site functions
- Ensuring secure, safe transactions
- Secure account login
- Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
- Remembering privacy and security settings
- Analyzing site traffic and usage
- Personalized search, content, and recommendations
- Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda
Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.
Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.
Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:
- Remembering general and regional preferences
- Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers
Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .
To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.
Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .
Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Universal Health Care — Universal Health Care: Persuasive Speech Outline
Universal Health Care: Persuasive Speech Outline
- Categories: Health Care Policy Universal Health Care
About this sample
Words: 437 |
Published: Mar 20, 2024
Words: 437 | Page: 1 | 3 min read
Table of contents
Introduction, i. equality, ii. public health, iii. financial burden.
Cite this Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
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
Get high-quality help
Prof. Kifaru
Verified writer
- Expert in: Nursing & Health
+ 120 experts online
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!
Related Essays
4 pages / 1628 words
2 pages / 1085 words
2 pages / 818 words
6 pages / 2253 words
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Still can’t find what you need?
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
Related Essays on Universal Health Care
Universal healthcare, often touted as a hallmark of progressive societies, is a system where healthcare services are provided to all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. In this essay, we will delve into the advantages [...]
Prenatal development refers to the remarkable process by which a single fertilized egg transforms into a complex, fully-formed human being. This intricate journey encompasses three distinct stages: germinal, embryonic, and [...]
Healthcare is a fundamental human right, yet millions of individuals around the world lack access to essential medical services. The concept of free healthcare, although contentious, presents a viable solution to this widespread [...]
Health issues are prevalent in today's society, with individuals facing a range of physical and mental challenges. The health-illness continuum is a crucial concept that highlights the dynamic nature of health and illness, [...]
Family Practice Physicians Office (the Group) is a medical practice with four locations in the greater Indianapolis, IN area. The clinical staff consists of 20 physicians, all of whom practice in one or more areas of family [...]
Introduction to the importance of healthcare accessibility in South Africa and the world Mention of primary health care (PHC) and its comprehensive approach Overview of the three key principles of PHC [...]
Related Topics
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Where do you want us to send this sample?
By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!
Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!
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
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Essay on Universal Healthcare in Spain. 7 Pages 3342 Words. The Spanish healthcare system covers 99.7 percent of its citizens, however, the American healthcare system leaves around 9 percent of its citizens uninsured ("Key Facts About the Uninsured" 9). Both the United States and Spain's healthcare industry differs greatly.
Get a custom research paper on Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons. 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 ...
Arguments by those who are opposed to the idea of UHC. Arguments related to individual responsibility It's the uninsured's fault that they're uninsured. 8 out of 10 of the uninsured work or come from working families. They play by the rules, work hard just like the rest of Americans, and yet they can't get insurance from the employer because it ...
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 ...
Pro 1. The United States already has universal health care for some. The government should expand the system to protect everyone. A national health insurance is a universal health care that "uses public insurance to pay for private-practice care. Every citizen pays into the national insurance plan.
Here are seven strong arguments for universal healthcare in America. 1. Lower Overall Costs. The costs of universal healthcare are far lower in other Western countries than private coverage in the United States. For example, administrative expenses alone make up 8% of the nation's total healthcare costs. On the other hand, other developed ...
Healthcare is a human right - but not in the United States. Abortion rights are just the latest casualty of U.S. failure to ensure universal and equitable access to healthcare. The Supreme Court's ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson in June is just the latest blow to health rights in the United States.
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 ...
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 ...
Commentary. Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate. Gabriel Zie ff1, * , Zachary Y. Kerr 1, Justin B. Moore 2 and Lee Stoner 1. 1 Department of Exercise and Sport ...
Get custom essay. The benefits of universal healthcare are clear. It provides access to healthcare for all citizens, helps to reduce healthcare costs, promotes a healthier population, reduces the financial burden on individuals, and leads to a more equitable society. While there may be challenges in implementing and funding a universal ...
Why Healthcare Should Be Free. Free health care would result in a healthier nation since people would visit the doctors when necessary and follow prescriptions. Research by Wisk et al. indicated that both middle and lower class families were suffering from the high cost of health care (1). Some families opted to avoid going to the doctor when a ...
Universal Healthcare in the United States. Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are due to 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 ...
Universal Healthcare: a Student's Perspective. Health care is a fundamental human right that should be accessible to all individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status. In a society that values equality and justice, it is imperative that health care be provided free of charge to all citizens. This essay will argue that health care should ...
Should Healthcare be Free for Everyone Essay. Health protection is one of the basic human rights because everyone wants to be healthy. At the same time, assistance in ensuring this health should come from the state as a guarantor of the protection of the person. The right to health is a fundamental aspect of any society; without a health system ...
Persuasive Essay On Universal Health Care. There are few issues as controversial in politics as the topic of universal health care. While most people consider some sort of health care to be a basic human right, the question remains whether the government holds a moral duty to create a universal healthcare system for its citizens or the free ...
The new American universal healthcare system will have definite shorter wait times for emergency purposes because Sabriya Rice of CNN reported "patients admitted to hospitals waited on average six hours in emergency room and nearly 400,000 patients waited 24 hours or more" (Rice). To improve upon a six hour wait time I would need to change ...
Universal Health Care Argumentative Essay. 727 Words3 Pages. Health care should not be considered a political argument in America; it is a matter of basic human rights. Something that many people seem to forget is that the US is the only industrialized western nation that lacks a universal health care system.
There are two possible constitutional solutions to our current healthcare problem. We could either expand our current Affordable Care Act and make healthcare generally more accessible and have everyone with a basic coverage, or we could try pushing for a Universal Healthcare system. As state earlier, many other developed countries like Canada, UK, Switzerland, etc.
Persuasive essay outline. persuasive essay outline. Course. Personality Psychology (PSY-255) 890 Documents. ... significant improvement in service delivery, health outcomes, and equity (Erku et al., 2023). This premise supports the argument for universal healthcare as it underscores the importance of equity in health services, emphasizing the ...
Persuasive Essay Final Draft universal healthcare should be free for everyone stephanie langford college of education, grand canyon university 105: 21st century. ... Universal healthcare should be implemented in the U. because healthcare is a human right, it would improve the health of Americans, and it would lower the medical bankruptcies rate ...
Conclusion. Restate Thesis: Universal health care is a fundamental human right that promotes equality, improves public health, and reduces financial burden for individuals and families. Summary of Main Points: Through its focus on equality, public health, and financial burden reduction, universal health care has the potential to improve the ...
The first argument analyzed will be the side that supports universal healthcare. This side is typically more emotionally …show more content… While debating this topic, Ben Shapiro claimed that a free-market health care system is the best way to in "The government is over-regulating our healthcare system, that is why prices have sky rocketed.