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. (2023, February 18). 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 , 18 Feb. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-provision-in-the-united-states/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons'. 18 February.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons." February 18, 2023. 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." February 18, 2023. 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." February 18, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-universal-health-care-provision-in-the-united-states/.

  • Pros and Cons of Obamacare
  • Home Birth: Pros and Cons
  • Advanced Practice Nurse: Roles, Pros and Cons
  • Pros and Cons of Physical Assisted Suicide
  • The COVID-19 RNA Vaccines: Pros and Cons
  • US Nutrition Policy: Pros and Cons of the Policy
  • Skin Grafting and Its Pros and Cons
  • 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)

U.S. flag

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)

Logo of medicina

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.

Brielle Bryan

Professor Clarke

March 5, 2004

Rhetorical Argument

Thesis statement:  The federal government should enact a program of universal health care to better protect and serve all of its citizens.

I.    The uninsured constitute a larger and more diverse segment of our population than most people realize.

  • The 2003 National Health Interview Survey showed that 42.3 million Americans (14.8%) were uninsured at the time of the survey.

B.   Most of the uninsured are not those living in poverty.

1.   The Kaiser Family Foundation’s Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that over 80% of uninsured come from working families.

2.   2001 Census Bureau data showed that the largest increase in uninsured from 2000 to 2001 was among people who had incomes of $75,000 or more.

C.  Data from the Health Insurance Association of America shows that the uninsured population continues to grow and could reach 61 million by 2009.

II.   Lack of insurance leads to serious problems for those without it.

A.  The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 American die prematurely each year because they are uninsured.

B.   According to Dr. W Light, a professor of health care policy and an expert on health care, 40% of bankruptcies in the US are the result of medical bills.

III. A universal health care program similar to the setup of the school system should be implemented by the federal government and would create unforeseen positive effects.

  • Because one of the most voiced concerns about universal health care is a decline in quality of care, a system loosely modeled after the American school system should be put into effect.
  • Because universal health care is such a large scale proposal, only the federal government has the adequate resources to implement such a large plan and guarantee equivalent services to all Americans.
  • The implementation of universal health care would be beneficial to our citizens and system of care in less obvious ways.

1.   According to Dr. Mohammad Akhter of the American Journal of Public Health, if uninsured individuals obtained health insurance, their mortality rates would be reduced by 10-15%, their educational attainment would increase, and their annual earnings would rise by 10-30%.

2.   While the claim is made that universal health care would cause problems of inefficiency, this claim is not necessarily true.

a.   In his article in the American Journal of Public Health, Lawrence Brown – professor of health policy at Columbia University – has discarded claims that wait lists are prevalent in countries with universal health care systems.

b.   Universal health care would lessen the amount of paperwork needing to be done by doctor’s offices and hospitals so that staff and time could be better employed in treating patients.

Akhter, M.  (2003). APHA Policies on universal health care: Health for a few or health for all? American Journal of Public Health , 93(1), 99-101.

Brown, L. (2003). Comparing health systems in four countries: Lessons for the United States. American Journal of Public Health , 93(1), 52-56.

Centers for Disease Control National Health Interview Survey. (2004). Health Insurance Coverage: Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January – June 2003 .  Retrieved February 29, 2004, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm

Health Insurance Association of America.  (2000). The Changing Sources of Health Insurance . Washington, DC: Custer.

Institute of Medicine . (2002). Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late .  Washington, DC: Author.

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. (2003). Health Insurance Coverage in America: 2002 Data Update.   Washington, DC:  The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Light, D.  (2003). Sick System. The Christian Century , 120(7), 9-10.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Health Insurance Coverage: 2001 . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

                In the preamble to our Constitution, the promotion of “general welfare” of its citizens is set forth as an intrinsic goal of the United States of America; yet, this in an area in which our nation has fallen shamefully short. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet, we are the only industrialized country that doesn’t guarantee its citizens access to medical care.  If our country stands for justice and equity as we claim it does, then why is it that we turn a blind eye on so  many of our citizens in need of health coverage?  I’m sure that as not only Americans, but as human beings, every person in this room has a sense of justice and compassion for his fellow man and believes that everyone is entitled to basic human rights.  But many of our fellow citizens are being left out in the cold when it comes to health care – one of the most basic needs.  [Without health coverage, these individuals could die from something as simple as the flu.  And since 18-24 year-olds are consistently the least insured segment of the population, this problem should be one of personal concern to many of you in this room, especially as you prepare to leave school and live on your own.]  Therefore, I believe the federal government should enact a program of universal health care to better protect and serve all of its citizens.  In proving my point I will define the uninsured population of America, discuss the problems caused by lack of insurance, describe the policy of universal health care that I believe will best suit our nation, and delineate the less obvious benefits of universal healthcare.

To understand why our nation is in need of universal health care, you must first understand that:

1.     The survey also showed that 30.2% of 18-24 year-olds, consistently the least insured age group, were without insurance in 2003.

      a.    70% of uninsured have at least one full-time worker in their family

      b.     56% of uninsured workers worked full-time for the full-year in 2002.

1.     According to a report cited in the CQ Researcher, 2.2 million Americans lost their insurance during the 2001 recession and layoffs. [6]

2.     Medical professor and fellow of the Center of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania Dr. Donald W. Light claims that for each percent that health care costs rise, 300,000 people are dropped from coverage, and health care costs are currently rising at 8-10% a year. [2]

A.  The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they are uninsured.

B.   According to Dr. Donald Light, a professor of health care policy and an expert on health care, 40% of bankruptcies in the US are the result of medical bills.

            * ConsumerHealth.com: typical doctor’s visit w/o insurance will cost $80-100

III. I will propose my plan for implementing universal health care and then address several of the prominent arguments against it.

  • Federal government should create a universal health care system similar to the American public school system.
  • Claims of opponents about the inadequacies of universal health care are false.

1.   Many claim it will lead to decreased quality of services.

      - My plan will avoid that, and it’s better than what millions of Americans are receiving now.

2.     People claim that the United States can’t afford universal health care.

a.   According to Dr. Donald Light, 24.1 percent of what employers and citizens pay goes to the complex billing, marketing, and administrative structures of the voluntary American system rather than to clinical services

b.     He also says that 16-20% of the $1.3 trillion spent annually on health care could be saved with a simplified universal system. (ER care)

3.     People claim that universal health care is inefficient.

1.     The American Journal of Public health discards claims that wait lists are prevalent in countries with universal health care systems. [10]

2.     Universal health care would lessen the amount of paperwork needing to be done by doctor’s offices and hospitals so that staff and time could be better employed in treating patients.

IV. The implementation of universal health care would be beneficial to our citizens in less obvious ways.

  • According to Dr. Mohammad Akhter of the American Journal of Public Health, if uninsured individuals obtained health insurance, their mortality rates would be reduced by 10-15%, their educational attainment would increase, and their annual earnings would rise by 10-30%.
  • Dr. Donald Light à raises productivity

1.     According to Dr. Light, the US ranks 72 nd in the world in health gain per $1 million spent, far below all other industrialized countries. [2]

  • It would improve the health for our nation as a whole, thus raising our quality of life, and improving our country in the eyes of the world. (Would make us seem less hypocritical at times.)

                In the hopes that you, too, will support a universal health care system for our nation, I’ve discussed the uninsured as a population, talked about the problems associated with lack of insurance, proposed universal health care as a solution to these problems, and described the less obvious benefits of universal health care.  If our country is going to continue to act as a guardian of human rights throughout the world and chastise other nations for the inhumane treatment of their citizens, we must first improve the conditions of our citizens here at home.  The first step in achieving this goal is realizing that health care – like education – should be a right for all citizens, not just a privilege for some.

Logo for Open Washington Pressbooks

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

Universal Health Coverage: The Benefits of Implementation in the United States

Colette Feghali-Behboud

Personal Statement

I am a current public health student at Lake Washington Institute of Technology. My purpose for developing this research paper is to bring awareness to the advantages and challenges of implementing a universal health coverage system in the United States. Despite the challenges, change is possible and recommended to improve health equity and increase general productivity among residents and communities. As a future public health professional, I aim to advocate for health reform in the state of Washington so that health care is accessible and affordable to all populations. Health care is a basic human right, not a privilege.

This paper aims to address how universal health coverage (UHC) could impact the quality of life for middle- to low-income households in the United States. The approaches to addressing this issue include gathering empirical data from credible sources and providing successful examples from other countries that utilize this type of system. Information on the advantages and challenges of UHC implementation in the U.S. have been collected and will be discussed. A few examples of advantages include health equity, improved quality of life for all, and decreased financial burdens for vulnerable populations. With the implementation of a UHC system in the U.S., it could foster a more productive society.

As one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States and its government should be able to provide Americans with universal health coverage (UHC). Many countries have successfully implemented some form of UHC and have statistically spent less money on health care services compared to the U.S. (McGough et al., 2023, para. 2). Universal health care has many benefits that could drastically transform and save lives. Based on evidence from comparably wealthy countries, once established, UHC in the U.S. would provide improved quality of life and health equity, preventive health care, affordable and cost-effective medical coverage, protection against future outbreaks and preventable deaths, and a better health care system. Quality health care should be easily accessible by all residents of the U.S.

Quality of Life and Health Equity Improvements

A common statement that many people believe, and others should acknowledge, is this: health care is a basic human right, not a privilege. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), universal health care is “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 [to] financial hardship” (Zieff et al., 2020, para. 2). Developing a UHC system in the U.S. would improve quality of life by eliminating medical costs incurred by uninsured and vulnerable populations. Additionally, a UHC system provides flexibility for people to pursue better employment as they are not tied to employer-provided insurance. A substantial portion of the U.S. population receives medical insurance through their employers and can thus face substantial hardships when losing employment. This is especially true among vulnerable populations that tend to have lower employment percentages. By providing UHC, health equity may be improved by narrowing the income-related disparities inherent in the U.S. (Schneider et al. 2021, para. 23). The quality of life for Americans can be improved by preventive care, which can diagnose and treat diseases before they become life-threatening (Galvani et al., 2020, para 19).

Advantages of Sustaining Preventive Health Care

One of the most important impacts of UHC is preventive care through access to healthcare services among middle- and low-income populations who cannot currently pay for medical costs. Patients who are at risk for developing chronic diseases and illnesses can address them at regular doctor visits and screenings. According to Zieff et al. (2020), “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 [socioeconomic status]” (para. 8). With the current costs of private insurance and unreliable employer-based health care, vulnerable populations are often underinsured or uninsured. This results in certain populations becoming unhealthy and less productive. Some examples of benefits that would be managed under UHC include behavioral and mental-health disorders, substance-use disorders, communicable diseases, and non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer (American Academy, n.d., Benefits section). Routine preventive care can foster an environment for patients to receive ongoing care and screenings as they age, including mammograms and prostate exams. With preventive care, patients with non-communicable diseases can receive laboratory and diagnostic testing to prevent emergency room visits. Supporting this approach, Zieff et al. (2020) report that “the uninsured diabetic population is responsible for 55% more emergency room visits each year than their insured diabetic counterparts” (para. 8). If the U.S. government adopted a UHC system, these conditions could be prevented or treated without any financial burdens associated with medical costs.

Affordable and Cost-Effective Medical Coverage

Americans who are against the implementation of UHC in the U.S. claim that the financial costs do not outweigh the benefits. On the contrary, Galvani et al. (2020) state, “we predict that a single-payer healthcare system would require $3.034 trillion annually, $458 billion less than current national healthcare expenditure” (para. 12). This translates into a savings of ~$1,400 per person annually. Additionally, the existing U.S. healthcare system already spends a disproportionate amount of gross domestic product (GDP) on medical care compared to economically comparable nations. A study that analyzed the U.S. healthcare costs per GDP found that “health spending per person in the U.S. was $12,914 in 2021, which was over $5,000 more than any other high-income nation” (McGough et al., 2023, para. 4)(see Figure 1). The U.S. is spending approximately 17% of its GDP on health care compared to 8 to 12% among 10 other wealthy nations, yet the care in the U.S. is substantially worse (Schneider et al., 2021, Exhibit 4). The one aspect of the current U.S. healthcare system that is working well is the “rates of mammography screening and influenza vaccination as well as the percentage of adults who [spoke] with their provider about nutrition, smoking, and alcohol use” (Schneider et al., 2021, para. 19). When advocating for the implementation of UHC in the U.S., it will be important to preserve this aspect that is currently working well.

Further objections to the UHC system are often made by shareholders of insurance companies whose primary focus is to drive up the price value of shares. Due to the insurance companies’ fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders combined with the private insurance model that has transiently enrolled patients, long-term care is not a priority. Instead, by limiting primary care, they reduce short-term costs (Galvani et al., 2020, para. 19). Under the UHC model, “a single-payer system would be financially responsible for healthcare throughout the lifespan of all Americans, [and thus] it becomes efficient to incur a small cost in the present with the purpose of avoiding more serious and costly health conditions in the future” (Galvani et al., 2020, para. 19). Associated costs with administrative, medical-service, and other health-care fees would decrease, and can balance the initial financial burden of establishing such a system. Along these lines, vulnerable groups would be able to access primary care and potentially save their lives.

Protection Against Future Outbreaks and Preventable Deaths

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans had insufficient access to medical coverage, which led to high mortality rates. Galvani et al. (2022) calculated that about 338,954 preventable deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic could have been averted with a UHC system (para. 11). For instance, if the uninsured populations had medical coverage and had been able to maintain health issues, it would have lowered their risk of comorbidities and death during the pandemic. According to the policy statement from the APHA, the existing employer-sponsored health insurance is subject to downturns in the economy and was predicted to cause 10 million Americans to lose their insurance from being laid off during the Covid-19 pandemic (American Public Health Association [APHA], 2020, para. 7). As a result, many Americans and family members enrolled into Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), further straining state and federal budgets (APHA, 2020, para. 5)(see Figure 2).

When Americans lose their access to health care, they can become vulnerable to mortality due to outbreaks as their diseases and illnesses go untreated. It is unsurprising that the tragic result of the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. was, in the estimation of Galvani et al (2020), that “the number of lives that could have been saved in 2020 by universal healthcare from both non-COVID conditions and COVID-19 would be 211,897” (para. 12). The American Public Health Association (APHA) (2020) describes the pandemic as “a watershed moment where we can reconstruct a fractured health insurance system into a system of universal health care” (Problem Statement section, para. 15). In the words of Wesley Mantooth, a professor and department chair at Lake Washington Institute of Technology, “in terms of communicable diseases, it seems like [the case for implementing UHC] is a good argument to persuade people that all of society would be safer if currently vulnerable members had better care” (Mantooth, personal communication, March 8th, 2023). To address this issue of inequity in the U.S. healthcare system, many people advocate for a transition to UHC. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders supports the Medicare for All Act (MAA), which would lower maternal deaths, increase the rate of survival for newborns, and increase the longevity of all people in the U.S. who are currently dying without comprehensive medical care (Galvani et al., 2020, Introduction section). Unfortunately, the reform in the U.S. healthcare system is slow to evolve and is often mired in political misinformation.

Successful Coverage Among Other Comparably Wealthy Countries

Despite being one of the highest income countries, the U.S. ranks among the lowest in healthcare approaches compared to countries with UHC. A 2021 study compared healthcare systems in 11 wealthy nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.S. According to Schneider et al. (2021), the key differences can be summarized below:

Four features distinguish top-performing countries from the United States: 1) they provide for universal coverage and remove cost barriers; 2) they invest in primary care systems to ensure that high-value services are equitably available in all communities to all people; 3) they reduce administrative burdens that divert time, efforts, and spending from health improvement efforts; and 4) they invest in social services, especially for children and working-age adults. (para. 5)

For the U.S. to reach equal standards of care, these four features must be addressed:

  • Providing affordable, universal coverage helps with three subcategories of care. First, patients would be less likely to report that insurance companies denied their claims. Secondly, patients would have fewer burdens in paying for their care. Lastly, there would be better access to same-day care as well as after-hours care. Currently, the U.S. ranks last when compared to 10 other wealthy nations in providing affordable coverage (Schneider et al., 2021, para. 14).
  • The next feature is equitably available primary care, which is currently unbalanced in the U.S., with high-income patients reporting easier access to primary care, while low-income communities struggle to meet their needs. When comparing the income gap to access of care of these same 10 wealthy nations, it becomes clear that not only would low-income communities benefit from UHC, but also wealthier ones, as 27% of high-income U.S residents still report access problems (Schneider et al., 2021, Exhibit 7) (see Figure 3). To clarify, this means that even wealthy communities would gain ground with the transition to UHC.
  • In the pursuit of improving administrative efficiencies, the U.S. stands to benefit from UHC implementation, as the U.S. ranks last in this category as well. Administrative efficiency is a measure of how burdensome documentation and bureaucratic tasks are that impose difficulties for patients and doctors to pursue care. Since insurance in the U.S. is so fragmented, patients can experience roadblocks to medication or treatment because their insurance does not cover it, or because a specialty clinic is out-of-network. By eliminating these inefficiencies with the implementation of UHC, the U.S. can reduce the cost of care and manage primary care efficiently and effectively.
  • The final category that these other wealthy countries currently outpace the U.S. in is their investment in social services. These services include “access to nutrition, education, child care, community safety, housing, transportation, and worker benefits” (Schneider et al., 2021, Discussion section). The benefits of these services contribute to one critical aspect of health care: a healthier population that lessens the burden on health services. A metaphor can be used to illustrate this concept, where the “reduce” feature of the “reduce, re-use, and recycle” program moto aims to prevent the use of materials before they enter the production cycle. Similarly, reducing hospital and emergency room visits by promoting healthier and more equitable communities in the first place can save money and resources. In a country where a large part of the GDP is already spent on health care, saving costs by moving to UHC would benefit the whole populace. It is important that all Americans can afford medical care to achieve the best health possible.

Health care in the U.S. is lacking and should reform to universal coverage as successfully shown in other comparable countries. Although universal health coverage has its advantages and disadvantages, the disadvantages of the initial financial costs would eventually balance out over time. Many advantages include access to health care for all, prevention of chronic diseases and illnesses, reduced medical bills, and protection against future national emergencies. Universal coverage provides access to health care for those without means to currently afford the costs. It would improve the health of the general population by providing routine care, preventive care, treatment, and support and resources to maintain their current conditions. Additionally, with the elimination of financial burdens from medical fees, middle- to low-income households would be able to provide their families with basic needs such as food and housing, among other things. Eliminating employer-sponsored health coverage would allow companies to divert their insurance payments to the paychecks of their workers. While workers would need to adjust to higher taxes to cover UHC, they would still save an expected $1,400 annually, per person, which may then be used to further stimulate the economy. This change could bring about better health and better economic growth.

American Academy of Family Physicians (n.d.). Health care for all: A framework for moving to a primary care-based health care system in the United States. American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/health-care-for-all.html

American Public Health Association (2020, October 24). The importance of universal health care in improving our nation’s response to pandemics and health disparities. American Public Health Association (APHA). https://www.apha.org/Policies-and-Advocacy/Public-Health-Policy-Statements/Policy-Database/2021/01/14/The-Importance-of-Universal-Health-Care-in-Improving-Response-to-Pandemics-and-Health-Disparities

Galvani, A. P., Parpia, A. S., Foster, E. M., Singer, B. H., & Fitzpatrick, M. C. (2020). Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA. The Lancet, 395(10223), 524–533. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572548/

Galvani, A. P., Parpia, A. S., Pandey, A., Sah, P., Colón, K., Friedman, G., Campbell, T., Kahn, J. G., Singer, B. H., & Fitzpatrick, M. C. (2022). Universal healthcare as pandemic preparedness: The lives and costs that could have been saved during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(25). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200536119

McGough, M., Telesford I., Rakshit, S., Wager, E., Amin, K., & Cox, C. (2023, February 15). How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/

Schneider, E. C., Shah, A., Doty, M. M., Tikkanen, R., Fields, K., & Williams II, R. D., (2021) Mirror, mirror 2021: Reflecting poorly. Commonwealth Fund. https://doi.org/10.26099/01dv-h208

Zieff, G., Kerr, Z. Y., Moore, J. B., & Stoner, L. (2020). Universal healthcare in the United States of America: A healthy debate. Medicina-Lithuania, 56(11), 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580

Note. This figure demonstrates the higher cost-related access problems among low- and high-income populations in the U.S. compared to other high-income countries.

Figure 1. U.S. Health Care Costs per GDP Compared to Other High-Income Nations Note. This figure shows a comparison of health-care costs per GDP between the U.S. and other high-income nations.

Graph of U.S. health consumption expenditures per capita, 2021

Figure 2. Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Enrollment (A, B), Excess Death (C), and Years of Life Lost (D) During Covid-19 Pandemic

Figure 2. Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Enrollment (A, B), Excess Death (C), and Years of Life Lost (D) During Covid-19 Pandemic

Figure 3. Higher Rates of Cost-Related Access Problems in the U.S. Compared to other High-Income Nations Note. This figure demonstrates the higher cost-related access problems among low- and high-income populations in the U.S. compared to other high-income countries.

Figure 3. Higher Rates of Cost-Related Access Problems in the U.S. Compared to other High-Income Nations

Keywords: universal health care; universal health coverage; health care; health care systems; health care debate; health care costs; health equity; universal health care benefits; universal health care advantages; access to health care

The Lion's Pride, Vol. 16 Copyright © 2022 by Colette Feghali-Behboud is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

logo, American Public Health Association, For science. For action. For health

  • Annual Meeting

APHA logo

  • Generation Public Health
  • Public Health Thank You Day
  • Who is public health?
  • Climate, Health and Equity
  • Racial Equity
  • Environmental Health
  • Gun Violence
  • Health Equity
  • All Topics and Issues
  • Advocacy for Public Health
  • Policy Statements
  • American Journal of Public Health
  • The Nation's Health
  • Fact Sheets
  • Reports and Issue Briefs
  • Advertising
  • Public Health Buyers Guide
  • Publications Contacts
  • Continuing Education
  • Public Health CareerMart
  • Internships & Fellowships
  • Careers at APHA
  • Policy Action Institute
  • National Public Health Week
  • APHA Calendar
  • News Releases
  • Social Media
  • Brand Guidelines
  • Member Sections
  • Student Assembly
  • Member Perks
  • Membership Rates
  • Agency Membership
  • School-Sponsored Student Membership
  • Special Member Savings
  • Early-Career Professionals
  • Gift Membership
  • APHA Your Way
  • Member Directory
  • Policy Statements and Advocacy >
  • Policy Statements >
  • Policy Statement Database >
  • Universal Health Care

Print

The Importance of Universal Health Care in Improving Our Nation’s Response to Pandemics and Health Disparities

  • Policy Statements and Advocacy
  • Policy Statement Database
  • Development Process
  • Archiving Process
  • Proposed Policy Statements
  • Date: Oct 24 2020
  • Policy Number: LB20-06

Key Words: Health Insurance, Health Care, Health Equity

Abstract The COVID pandemic adds a new sense of urgency to establish a universal health care system in the United States. Our current system is inequitable, does not adequately cover vulnerable groups, is cost prohibitive, and lacks the flexibility to respond to periods of economic and health downturns. During economic declines, our employer-supported insurance system results in millions of Americans losing access to care. While the Affordable Care Act significantly increased Americans’ coverage, it remains expensive and is under constant legal threat, making it an unreliable conduit of care. Relying on Medicaid as a safety net is untenable because, although enrollment has increased, states are making significant Medicaid cuts to balance budgets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries with universal health care leveraged their systems to mobilize resources and ensure testing and care for their residents. In addition, research shows that expanding health coverage decreases health disparities and supports vulnerable populations’ access to care. This policy statement advocates for universal health care as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in October 2019. The statement promotes the overall goal of achieving a system that cares for everyone. It refrains from supporting one particular system, as the substantial topic of payment models deserves singular attention and is beyond the present scope.

Relationship to Existing APHA Policy Statements We propose that this statement replace APHA Policy Statement 20007 (Support for a New Campaign for Universal Health Care), which is set to be archived in 2020. The following policy statements support the purpose of this statement by advocating for health reform:

  • APHA Policy Statement Statement 200911: Public Health’s Critical Role in Health Reform in the United States
  • APHA Policy Statement 201415: Support for Social Determinants of Behavioral Health and Pathways for Integrated and Better Public Health

In addition, this statement is consistent with the following APHA policies that reference public health’s role in disaster response:

  • APHA Policy Statement 20198: Public Health Support for Long-Term Responses in High-Impact, Postdisaster Settings
  • APHA Policy Statement 6211(PP): The Role of State and Local Health Departments in Planning for Community Health Emergencies
  • APHA Policy Statement 9116: Health Professionals and Disaster Preparedness
  • APHA Policy Statement 20069: Response to Disasters: Protection of Rescue and Recovery Workers, Volunteers, and Residents Responding to Disasters

Problem Statement Discussions around universal health care in the United States started in the 1910s and have resurfaced periodically.[1] President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted twice in the 1940s to establish universal health care and failed both times.[1] Eventually, the U.S. Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. Universal health care more recently gained attention during debates on and eventual passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).[2]

To date, the U.S. government remains the largest payer of health care in the United States, covering nearly 90 million Americans through Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).[3] However, this coverage is not universal, and many Americans were uninsured[4] or underinsured[5] before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated underlying issues in our current health care system and highlighted the urgent need for universal health care for all Americans.

Health care is inaccessible for many individuals in the United States: For many Americans, accessing health care is cost prohibitive.[6] Coverage under employer-based insurance is vulnerable to fluctuations in the economy. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an estimated 10 million Americans may lose their employer-sponsored health insurance by December 2020 as a result of job loss.[7] When uninsured or underinsured people refrain from seeking care secondary to cost issues, this leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment, promotes the spread of COVID-19, and may increase overall health care system costs.

The ACA reformed health care by, for instance, eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions, requiring coverage of 10 standardized essential health care services, capping out-of-pocket expenses, and significantly increasing the number of insured Americans. However, many benefits remain uncovered, and out-of-pocket costs can vary considerably. For example, an ACA average deductible ($3,064) is twice the rate of a private health plan ($1,478).[4] Those living with a disability or chronic illness are likely to use more health services and pay more. A recent survey conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that 38.2% of working adults and 59.6% of adults receiving unemployment benefits from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act could not afford a $400 expense, highlighting that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated lack of access to health care because of high out-of-pocket expenses.[8] In addition, the ACA did not cover optometry or dental services for adults, thereby inhibiting access to care even among the insured population.[9]

Our current health care system cannot adequately respond to the pandemic and supply the care it demands: As in other economic downturns wherein people lost their employer-based insurance, more people enrolled in Medicaid during the pandemic. States’ efforts to cover their population, such as expanding eligibility, allowing self-attestation of eligibility criteria, and simplifying the application process, also increased Medicaid enrollment numbers.[10] The federal “maintenance of eligibility” requirements further increased the number of people on Medicaid by postponing eligibility redeterminations. While resuming eligibility redeterminations will cause some to lose coverage, many will remain eligible because their incomes continue to fall below Medicaid income thresholds.[10]

An urgent need for coverage during the pandemic exists. Virginia’s enrollment has increased by 20% since March 2020. In Arizona, 78,000 people enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP in 2 months.[11] In New Mexico, where 42% of the population was already enrolled in Medicaid, 10,000 more people signed up in the first 2 weeks of April than expected before the pandemic.[11] Nearly 17 million people who lost their jobs during the pandemic could be eligible for Medicaid by January 2021.[12]

While increasing Medicaid enrollment can cover individuals who otherwise cannot afford care, it further strains state budgets.[11] Medicaid spending represents a significant portion of states’ budgets, making it a prime target for cuts. Ohio announced $210 million in cuts to Medicaid, a significant part of Colorado’s $229 million in spending cuts came from Medicaid, Alaska cut $31 million in Medicaid, and Georgia anticipates 14% reductions overall.[11]

While Congress has authorized a 6.2% increase in federal Medicaid matching, this increase is set to expire at the end of the public health emergency declaration (currently set for October 23, 2020)[13] and is unlikely to sufficiently make up the gap caused by increased spending and decreased revenue.[14] Given the severity and projected longevity of the pandemic’s economic consequences, many people will remain enrolled in Medicaid throughout state and federal funding cuts. This piecemeal funding strategy is unsustainable and will strain Medicaid, making accessibility even more difficult for patients.

Our health care system is inequitable: Racial disparities are embedded in our health care system and lead to worse COVID-19 health outcomes in minority groups. The first federal health care program, the medical division of the Freedmen’s Bureau, was established arguably out of Congress’s desire for newly emancipated slaves to return to working plantations in the midst of a smallpox outbreak in their community rather than out of concern for their well-being.[15] An effort in 1945 to expand the nation’s health care system actually reinforced segregation of hospitals.[15] Moreover, similar to today, health insurance was employer based, making it difficult for Black Americans to obtain.

Although the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed segregation of health care facilities receiving federal funding and the 2010 ACA significantly benefited people of color, racial and sexual minority disparities persist today in our health care system. For example, under a distribution formula set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), hospitals reimbursed mostly by Medicaid and Medicare received far less federal funding from the March 2020 CARES Act and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act than hospitals mostly reimbursed by private insurance.[16] Hospitals in the bottom 10% based on private insurance revenue received less than half of what hospitals in the top 10% received. Medicare reimburses hospitals, on average, at half the rate of private insurers. Therefore, hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients received a disproportionately smaller share of total federal funding.[16]

Additional barriers for these communities include fewer and more distant testing sites, longer wait times,[17] prohibitive costs, and lack of a usual source of care.[18] Black Americans diagnosed with COVID-19 are more likely than their White counterparts to live in lower-income zip codes, to receive tests in the emergency department or as inpatients, and to be hospitalized and require care in an intensive care unit.[19] Nationally, only 20% of U.S. counties are disproportionately Black, but these counties account for 52% of COVID-19 diagnoses and 58% of deaths.[20] The pre-pandemic racial gaps in health care catalyzed pandemic disparities and will continue to widen them in the future.

Our health care system insufficiently covers vulnerable groups: About 14 million U.S. adults needed long-term care in 2018.[21] Medicare, employer-based insurance, and the ACA do not cover home- and community-based long-term care. Only private long-term care insurance and patchwork systems for Medicaid-eligible recipients cover such assistance. For those paying out of pocket, estimated home care services average $51,480 to $52,624 per year, with adult day services at more than $19,500 per year.[22]

Our current health care system also inadequately supports individuals with mental illness. APHA officially recognized this issue in 2014, stating that we have “lacked an adequate and consistent public health response [to behavioral health disorders] for several reasons” and that the “treatment of mental health and substance use disorders in the United States has been provided in segregated, fragmented, and underfunded care settings.”[23]

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought urgency to the universal health care discussion in the United States. This is an unprecedented time, and the pandemic has exacerbated many of the existing problems in our current patchwork health care system. The COVID-19 pandemic is a watershed moment where we can reconstruct a fractured health insurance system into a system of universal health care.

Evidence-Based Strategies to Address the Problem We advocate for the definition of universal health care outlined in the 2019 resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, which member nations signed on to, including the United States. According to this resolution, “universal health coverage implies that all people have access, without discrimination, to nationally determined sets of the needed promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative essential health services, and essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines, while ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the users to financial hardship, with a special emphasis on the poor, vulnerable and marginalized segments of the population.”[24]

Our current system is inaccessible, inflexible, and inequitable, and it insufficiently covers vulnerable populations. Here we present supporting evidence that universal health care can help address these issues.

Universal health care can increase accessibility to care: Evidence supporting universal health care is mostly limited to natural experiments and examples from other countries. Although countries with universal health care systems also struggle in containing the COVID-19 pandemic, their response and mortality outcomes are better owing to their robust universal systems.[25]

While individuals in the United States lost health care coverage during the pandemic, individuals in countries with universal health care were able to maintain access to care.[26–28] Some European and East Asian countries continue to offer comprehensive, continuous care to their citizens during the pandemic.

Taiwan’s single-payer national health insurance covers more than 99% of the country’s population, allowing easy access to care with copayments of $14 for physician visits and $7 for prescriptions. On average, people in Taiwan see their physician 15 times per year.[27] Also, coronavirus tests are provided free of charge, and there are sufficient hospital isolation rooms for confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19.[28]

Thai epidemiologists credit their universal health care system with controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.[29] They have described how their first patient, a taxi driver, sought medical attention unencumbered by doubts about paying for his care. They benefit from one of the lowest caseloads in the world.[29]

Universal health care is a more cohesive system that can better respond to health care demands during the pandemic and in future routine care: Leveraging its universal health care system, Norway began aggressively tracking and testing known contacts of individuals infected with COVID-19 as early as February 2020. Public health officials identified community spread and quickly shut down areas of contagion. By April 30, Norway had administered 172,586 tests and recorded 7,667 positive cases of COVID-19. Experts attribute Norway’s success, in part, to its universal health care system.[26] Norway’s early comprehensive response and relentless testing and tracing benefited the country’s case counts and mortality outcomes.

Once China released the genetic sequence of COVID-19, Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control laboratory rapidly developed a test kit and expanded capacity via the national laboratory diagnostic network, engaging 37 laboratories that can perform 3,900 tests per day.[28] Taiwan quickly mobilized approaches for case identification, distribution of face masks, containment, and resource allocation by leveraging its national health insurance database and integrating it with the country’s customs and immigration database daily.[28] Taiwan’s system proved to be flexible in meeting disaster response needs.

Although these countries’ success in containing COVID-19 varied, their universal health care systems allowed comprehensive responses.

Universal health care can help decrease disparities and inequities in health: Several factors point to decreased racial and ethnic disparities under a universal health care model. CHIP’s creation in 1997 covered children in low-income families who did not qualify for Medicaid; this coverage is associated with increased access to care and reduced racial disparities.[30] Similarly, differences in diabetes and cardiovascular disease outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status decline among previously uninsured adults once they become eligible for Medicare coverage.[31] While universal access to medical care can reduce health disparities, it does not eliminate them; health inequity is a much larger systemic issue that society needs to address.

Universal health care better supports the needs of vulnerable groups: The United States can adopt strategies from existing models in other countries with long-term care policies already in place. For example, Germany offers mandatory long-term disability and illness coverage as part of its national social insurance system, operated since 2014 by 131 nonprofit sickness funds. German citizens can receive an array of subsidized long-term care services without age restrictions.[32] In France, citizens 60 years and older receive long-term care support through an income-adjusted universal program.[33]

Universal health care can also decrease health disparities among individuals with mental illness. For instance, the ACA Medicaid expansion helped individuals with mental health concerns by improving access to care and effective mental health treatment.[34]

Opposing Arguments/Evidence Universal health care is more expensive: Government spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP has been increasing and is projected to grow 6.3% on average annually between 2018 and 2028.[35] In 1968, spending on major health care programs represented 0.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP); in 2018 it represented 5.2% of the GDP, and it is projected to represent 6.8% in 2028.[35] These estimates do not account for universal health care, which, by some estimates, may add $32.6 trillion to the federal budget during the first 10 years and equal 10% of the GDP in 2022.[36]

Counterpoint: Some models of single-payer universal health care systems estimate savings of $450 billion annually.[37] Others estimate $1.8 trillion in savings over a 10-year period.[38] In 2019, 17% of the U.S. GDP was spent on health care; comparable countries with universal health care spent, on average, only 8.8%.[39]

Counterpoint: Health care services in the United States are more expensive than in other economically comparable countries. For example, per capita spending on inpatient and outpatient care (the biggest driver of health care costs in the United States) is more than two times greater even with shorter hospital stays and fewer physician visits.[40] Overall, the United States spends over $5,000 more per person in health costs than countries of similar size and wealth.[40]

Counterpoint: Administrative costs are lower in countries with universal health care. The United States spends four times more per capita on administrative costs than similar countries with universal health care.[41] Nine percent of U.S. health care spending goes toward administrative costs, while other countries average only 3.6%. In addition, the United States has the highest growth rate in administrative costs (5.4%), a rate that is currently double that of other countries.[41]

Universal health care will lead to rationing of medical services, increase wait times, and result in care that is inferior to that currently offered by the U.S. health care system. Opponents of universal health care point to the longer wait times of Medicaid beneficiaries and other countries as a sign of worse care. It has been shown that 9.4% of Medicaid beneficiaries have trouble accessing care due to long wait times, as compared with 4.2% of privately insured patients.[42] Patients in some countries with universal health care, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, experience longer wait times to see their physicians than patients in the United States.[43] In addition, some point to lower cancer death rates in the United States than in countries with universal health care as a sign of a superior system.[44]

Another concern is rationing of medical services due to increased demands from newly insured individuals. Countries with universal health care use methods such as price setting, service restriction, controlled distribution, budgeting, and cost-benefit analysis to ration services.[45]

Counterpoint: The Unites States already rations health care services by excluding patients who are unable to pay for care. This entrenched rationing leads to widening health disparities. It also increases the prevalence of chronic conditions in low-income and minority groups and, in turn, predisposes these groups to disproportionately worse outcomes during the pandemic. Allocation of resources should not be determined by what patients can and cannot afford. This policy statement calls for high-value, evidence-based health care, which will reduce waste and decrease rationing.

Counterpoint: Opponents of universal health care note that Medicaid patients endure longer wait times to obtain care than privately insured patients[42] and that countries with universal health care have longer wait times than the United States.[43] Although the United States enjoys shorter wait times, this does not translate into better health outcomes. For instance, the United States has higher respiratory disease, maternal mortality, and premature death rates and carries a higher disease burden than comparable wealthy countries.[46]

Counterpoint: A review of more than 100 countries’ health care systems suggests that broader coverage increases access to care and improves population health.

Counterpoint: While it is reasonable to assume that eliminating financial barriers to care will lead to a rise in health care utilization because use will increase in groups that previously could not afford care, a review of the implementation of universal health care in 13 capitalist countries revealed no or only small (less than 10%) post-implementation increases in overall health care use.[47] This finding was likely related to some diseases being treated earlier, when less intense utilization was required, as well as a shift in use of care from the wealthy to the poorest.[47]

Alternative Strategies States and the federal government can implement several alternative strategies to increase access to health care. However, these strategies are piecemeal responses, face legal challenges, and offer unreliable assurance for coverage. Importantly, these alternative strategies also do not necessarily or explicitly acknowledge health as a right.

State strategies: The remaining 14 states can adopt the Medicaid expansions in the ACA, and states that previously expanded can open new enrollment periods for their ACA marketplaces to encourage enrollment.[48] While this is a strategy to extend coverage to many of those left behind, frequent legal challenges to the ACA and Medicaid cuts make it an unreliable source of coverage in the future. In addition, although many people gained insurance, access to care remained challenging due to prohibitively priced premiums and direct costs.

Before the pandemic, the New York state legislature began exploring universal single-payer coverage, and the New Mexico legislature started considering a Medicaid buy-in option.[49] These systems would cover only residents of a particular state, and they remain susceptible to fluctuations in Medicaid cuts, state revenues, and business decisions of private contractors in the marketplace.

Federal government strategies: Congress can continue to pass legislation in the vein of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the CARES Act. These acts required all private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid to cover COVID-19 testing, eliminate cost sharing, and set funds to cover testing for uninsured individuals. They fell short in requiring assistance with COVID-19 treatment. A strategy of incremental legislation to address the pandemic is highly susceptible to the political climate, is unreliable, and does not address non-COVID-19 health outcomes. Most importantly, this system perpetuates a fragmented response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

An additional option for the federal government is to cover the full costs of Medicaid expansion in the 14 states yet to expand coverage. If states increased expansion and enforced existing ACA regulations, nearly all Americans could gain health insurance.[50] This alternative is risky, however, due to frequent legal challenges to the ACA. Furthermore, high costs to access care would continue to exist.

Action Steps This statement reaffirms APHA’s support of the right to health through universal health care. Therefore, APHA:

  • Urges Congress and the president to recognize universal health care as a right.
  • Urges Congress to fund and design and the president to enact and implement a comprehensive universal health care system that is accessible and affordable for all residents; that ensures access to rural populations, people experiencing homelessness, sexual minority groups, those with disabilities, and marginalized populations; that is not dependent on employment, medical or mental health status, immigration status, or income; that emphasizes high-value, evidence-based care; that includes automatic and mandatory enrollment; and that minimizes administrative burden.
  • Urges Congress and states to use the COVID-19 pandemic as a catalyst to develop an inclusive and comprehensive health care system that is resilient, equitable, and accessible.
  • Urges the DHHS, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, academic institutions, researchers, and think tanks to examine equitable access to health care, including provision of mental health care, long-term care, dental care, and vision care.
  • Urges Congress, national health care leaders, academic institutions, hospitals, and each person living in the United States to recognize the harms caused by institutionalized racism in our health care system and collaborate to build a system that is equitable and just.
  • Urges Congress to mandate the Federal Register Standards for Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment to meet the everyday health care physical access challenges of children and adults with disabilities.
  • Urges national health care leaders to design a transition and implementation strategy that communicates the impact of a proposed universal health care system on individuals, hospitals, health care companies, health care workers, and communities.
  • Urges Congress, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DHHS, and other public health partners, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, to recognize the need for and supply adequate funding for a robust public health system. This public health system will prepare for, prevent, and respond to both imminent and long-term threats to public health, as previously supported in APHA Policy Statement 200911.

References 1. Palmer K. A brief history: universal health care efforts in the US. Available at: https://pnhp.org/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us/. Accessed September 30, 2020. 2. Serakos M, Wolfe B. The ACA: impacts on health, access, and employment. Forum Health Econ Policy. 2016;19(2):201–259. 3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS roadmaps for the traditional fee-for-service program: overview. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality-initiatives-patient-assessment-instruments/qualityinitiativesgeninfo/downloads/roadmapoverview_oea_1-16.pdf. Accessed September 30, 2020. 4. Goldman AL, McCormick D, Haas JS, Sommers BD. Effects of the ACA’s health insurance marketplaces on the previously uninsured: a quasi-experimental analysis. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(4):591–599. 5. Collins SR, Gunja MZ, Doty MM, Bhupal HK. Americans’ views on health insurance at the end of a turbulent year. Available at: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2018/mar/americans-views-health-insurance-end-turbulent-year. Accessed August 28, 2020. 6. Tolbert J, Orgera K, Singer N, Damico A. Key facts about the uninsured population. Available at: https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/. Accessed September 12, 2020. 7. Banthin J, Simpson M, Buettgens M, Blumberg LJ, Wang R. Changes in health insurance coverage due to the COVID-19 recession. Available at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/changes-health-insurance-coverage-due-covid-19-recession. Accessed September 30, 2020. 8. Gaffney AW, Himmelstein DU, McCormick D, Woolhandler S. Health and social precarity among Americans receiving unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 outbreak. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(11):3416–3419. 9. Lutfiyya MN, Gross AJ, Soffe B, Lipsky MS. Dental care utilization: examining the associations between health services deficits and not having a dental visit in the past 12 months. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):265. 10. Rudowitz R, Hinton, E. Early look at Medicaid spending and enrollment trends amid COVID-19. Available at: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/early-look-at-medicaid-spending-and-enrollment-trends-amid-covid-19/. Accessed August 14, 2020. 11. Roubein R, Goldberg D. States cut Medicaid as millions of jobless workers look to safety net. Available at: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/05/states-cut-medicaid-programs-239208. Accessed August 14, 2020. 12. Garfield R, Claxton G, Damico A, Levitt L. Eligibility for ACA health coverage following job loss. Available at: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/eligibility-for-aca-health-coverage-following-job-loss/. Accessed August 14, 2020. 13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Renewal of determination that a public health emergency exists. Available at: https://www.phe.gov/emergency/news/healthactions/phe/Pages/covid19-2Oct2020.aspx. Accessed September 30, 2020. 14. Rudowitz RC, Garfield R. How much fiscal relief can states expect from the temporary increase in the Medicaid FMAP? Available at: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how-much-fiscal-relief-can-states-expect-from-the-temporary-increase-in-the-medicaid-fmap/. Accessed August 14, 2020. 15. Downs J. Sick from Freedom: African-American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015. 16. Schwartz K, Damico A. Distribution of CARES Act funding among hospitals. Available at: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/distribution-of-cares-act-funding-among-hospitals/?utm_campaign=KFF-2020-Health-Costs&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_NBOAd_787Yk73Ach1gaH-KDgGLsgoe4vPuqKuidkHwExyNBpENTaB_1ofCIpXrzNoNCx8ACiem-YqMKAF8-6Zv7xDXw&_hsmi=2. Accessed August 15, 2020. 17. Rader B, Astley CM, Sy KTL, et al. Geographic access to United States SARS-CoV-2 testing sites highlights healthcare disparities and may bias transmission estimates. J Travel Med. 2020;27(7):taaa076. 18. Artiga S, Garfield R, Orgera K. Communities of color at higher risk for health and economic challenges due to COVID-19. Available at: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/communities-of-color-at-higher-risk-for-health-and-economic-challenges-due-to-covid-19/. Accessed August 14, 2020. 19. Azar K, Shen Z, Romanelli R, et al. Disparities in outcomes among COVID-19 patients in a large health care system in California. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39(7):1253–1262. 20. Millett GA, Jones AT, Benkeser D, et al. Assessing differential impacts of COVID-19 on black communities. Ann Epidemiol. 2020;47:37–44. 21. Hado E, Komisar H. Long-term services and supports. Available at: https://www.aarp.org/ppi/info-2017/long-term-services-and-supports.html. Accessed September 1, 2020. 22. GenWorth Financial. Cost of care survey. Available at: https://www.genworth.com/aging-and-you/finances/cost-of-care.html. Accessed September 1, 2020. 23. American Public Health Association. Policy statement 201415: support for social determinants of behavioral health and pathways for integrated and better public health. Available at: https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2015/01/28/14/58/support-for-social-determinants-of-behavioral-health. Accessed September 1, 2020. 24. UN General Assembly. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10 October 2019—political declaration of the high-level meeting on universal health coverage. Available at: https://www.un.org/pga/73/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2019/07/FINAL-draft-UHC-Political-Declaration.pdf. Accessed September 30, 2020. 25. Sommers BD, Baicker K, Epstein AM. Mortality and access to care among adults after state Medicaid expansions. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):1025–1034. 26. Jones A. I left Norway’s lockdown for the US: the difference is shocking. Available at: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/coronavirus-norway-lockdown/. Accessed September 1, 2020. 27. Maizland L. Comparing six health-care systems in a pandemic. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/comparing-six-health-care-systems-pandemicX. Accessed August 20, 2020. 28. Wang CJ, Ng CY, Brook RH. Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. JAMA. 2020;323(14):1341–1342. 29. Gharib M. Universal health care supports Thailand’s coronavirus strategy. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/28/884458999/universal-health-care-supports-thailands-coronavirus-strategy. Accessed August 30, 2020. 30. Shone LP, Dick AW, Klein JD, Zwanziger J, Szilagyi PG. Reduction in racial and ethnic disparities after enrollment in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Pediatrics. 2005;115(6):e697–e705. 31. McWilliams JM, Meara E, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Health of previously uninsured adults after acquiring Medicare coverage. JAMA. 2007;298(24):2886–2894. 32. Rhee JC, Done N, Anderson GF. Considering long-term care insurance for middle-income countries: comparing South Korea with Japan and Germany. Health Policy. 2015;119(10):1319–1329. 33. Doty P, Nadash P, Racco N. Long-term care financing: lessons from France. Milbank Q. 2015;93(2):359–391. 34. Wen H, Druss BG, Cummings JR. Effect of Medicaid expansions on health insurance coverage and access to care among low-income adults with behavioral health conditions. Health Serv Res. 2015;50(6):1787–1809. 35. Congressional Budget Office. Projections of federal spending on major health care programs. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/presentation/53887-presentation.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2020. 36. Blahous C. The costs of a national single-payer healthcare system. Available at: https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/costs-national-single-payer-healthcare-system. Accessed October 10, 2020. 37. Galvani AP, Parpia AS, Foster EM, Singer BH, Fitzpatrick MC. Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):524–533. 38. Friedman G. Funding HR 676: the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. How we can afford a national single-payer health plan. Available at: https://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2020. 39. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health expenditure and financing. Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?ThemeTreeId=9. Accessed September 27, 2020. 40. Kurani N, Cox C. What drives health spending in the U.S. compared to other countries? Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/. Accessed September 30, 2020. 41. Tollen L, Keating E, Weil A. How administrative spending contributes to excess US health spending. Available at: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200218.375060/abs/. Accessed August 30, 2020. 42. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Medicaid: states made multiple program changes, and beneficiaries generally reported access comparable to private insurance. Available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649788.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2020. 43. How Canada Compares: Results from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2016 International Health Policy Survey of Adults in 11 Countries. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2017. 44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Deaths from cancer: total, per 100,000 persons, 2018 or latest available. Available at: https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/deaths-from-cancer.htm. Accessed October 12, 2020. 45. Hoffman B. Health Care for Some: Rights and Rationing in the United States since 1930. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2012. 46. Kurani N, McDermott D, Shanosky N. How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-start. Accessed September 20, 2020. 47. Gaffney A, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D. The effect of large-scale health coverage expansions in wealthy nations on society-wide healthcare utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(8):2406–2417. 48. King JS. COVID-19 and the need for health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(26):e104. 49. Hughes M. COVID-19 proves that we need universal health care. States are exploring their options. Available at: https://rooseveltinstitute.org/2020/06/25/covid-19-proves-that-we-need-universal-health-care-states-are-exploring-their-options/. Accessed September 1, 2020. 50. Blumenthal D, Fowler EJ, Abrams M, Collins SR. COVID-19—implications for the health care system. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1483–1488.

thesis statements universal healthcare

  • What is public health
  • Topics and Issues
  • Policies and Advocacy
  • Publications
  • Professional Development
  • Events and Meetings
  • News and Media
  • APHA Communities
  • Privacy Policy

2024 © American Public Health Association

Downloadable Content

thesis statements universal healthcare

Exploring Universal Healthcare for the United States

  • Masters Thesis
  • Angelica Jauregui California State University, Bakersfield
  • Tony Pallitto California State University, Bakersfield
  • Rabia Sohail California State University, Bakersfield
  • Bakersfield
  • Business and Public Administration
  • Public Policy and Administration
  • California State University, Bakersfield
  • Master of Science in Health Care Administration
  • Medicine and Health Sciences > Health and Medical Administration
  • Health services administration
  • Medical care
  • United States
  • Single-payer health care
  • http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12680/s4655q181

Relationships

  • Health Care Administration

California State University, Bakersfield

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Facts.net

Turn Your Curiosity Into Discovery

Latest facts.

11 Facts About National Numeracy Day May 22nd

11 Facts About National Numeracy Day May 22nd

9 Facts About Workers Memorial Day April 28th

9 Facts About Workers Memorial Day April 28th

40 facts about elektrostal.

Lanette Mayes

Written by Lanette Mayes

Modified & Updated: 02 Mar 2024

Jessica Corbett

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

40-facts-about-elektrostal

Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to captivate you.

This article will provide you with 40 fascinating facts about Elektrostal, giving you a better understanding of why this city is worth exploring. From its origins as an industrial hub to its modern-day charm, we will delve into the various aspects that make Elektrostal a unique and must-visit destination.

So, join us as we uncover the hidden treasures of Elektrostal and discover what makes this city a true gem in the heart of Russia.

Key Takeaways:

  • Elektrostal, known as the “Motor City of Russia,” is a vibrant and growing city with a rich industrial history, offering diverse cultural experiences and a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
  • With its convenient location near Moscow, Elektrostal provides a picturesque landscape, vibrant nightlife, and a range of recreational activities, making it an ideal destination for residents and visitors alike.

Known as the “Motor City of Russia.”

Elektrostal, a city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia, earned the nickname “Motor City” due to its significant involvement in the automotive industry.

Home to the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Elektrostal is renowned for its metallurgical plant, which has been producing high-quality steel and alloys since its establishment in 1916.

Boasts a rich industrial heritage.

Elektrostal has a long history of industrial development, contributing to the growth and progress of the region.

Founded in 1916.

The city of Elektrostal was founded in 1916 as a result of the construction of the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Located approximately 50 kilometers east of Moscow.

Elektrostal is situated in close proximity to the Russian capital, making it easily accessible for both residents and visitors.

Known for its vibrant cultural scene.

Elektrostal is home to several cultural institutions, including museums, theaters, and art galleries that showcase the city’s rich artistic heritage.

A popular destination for nature lovers.

Surrounded by picturesque landscapes and forests, Elektrostal offers ample opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching.

Hosts the annual Elektrostal City Day celebrations.

Every year, Elektrostal organizes festive events and activities to celebrate its founding, bringing together residents and visitors in a spirit of unity and joy.

Has a population of approximately 160,000 people.

Elektrostal is home to a diverse and vibrant community of around 160,000 residents, contributing to its dynamic atmosphere.

Boasts excellent education facilities.

The city is known for its well-established educational institutions, providing quality education to students of all ages.

A center for scientific research and innovation.

Elektrostal serves as an important hub for scientific research, particularly in the fields of metallurgy, materials science, and engineering.

Surrounded by picturesque lakes.

The city is blessed with numerous beautiful lakes, offering scenic views and recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike.

Well-connected transportation system.

Elektrostal benefits from an efficient transportation network, including highways, railways, and public transportation options, ensuring convenient travel within and beyond the city.

Famous for its traditional Russian cuisine.

Food enthusiasts can indulge in authentic Russian dishes at numerous restaurants and cafes scattered throughout Elektrostal.

Home to notable architectural landmarks.

Elektrostal boasts impressive architecture, including the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Elektrostal Palace of Culture.

Offers a wide range of recreational facilities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy various recreational activities, such as sports complexes, swimming pools, and fitness centers, enhancing the overall quality of life.

Provides a high standard of healthcare.

Elektrostal is equipped with modern medical facilities, ensuring residents have access to quality healthcare services.

Home to the Elektrostal History Museum.

The Elektrostal History Museum showcases the city’s fascinating past through exhibitions and displays.

A hub for sports enthusiasts.

Elektrostal is passionate about sports, with numerous stadiums, arenas, and sports clubs offering opportunities for athletes and spectators.

Celebrates diverse cultural festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal hosts a variety of cultural festivals, celebrating different ethnicities, traditions, and art forms.

Electric power played a significant role in its early development.

Elektrostal owes its name and initial growth to the establishment of electric power stations and the utilization of electricity in the industrial sector.

Boasts a thriving economy.

The city’s strong industrial base, coupled with its strategic location near Moscow, has contributed to Elektrostal’s prosperous economic status.

Houses the Elektrostal Drama Theater.

The Elektrostal Drama Theater is a cultural centerpiece, attracting theater enthusiasts from far and wide.

Popular destination for winter sports.

Elektrostal’s proximity to ski resorts and winter sport facilities makes it a favorite destination for skiing, snowboarding, and other winter activities.

Promotes environmental sustainability.

Elektrostal prioritizes environmental protection and sustainability, implementing initiatives to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.

Home to renowned educational institutions.

Elektrostal is known for its prestigious schools and universities, offering a wide range of academic programs to students.

Committed to cultural preservation.

The city values its cultural heritage and takes active steps to preserve and promote traditional customs, crafts, and arts.

Hosts an annual International Film Festival.

The Elektrostal International Film Festival attracts filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts from around the world, showcasing a diverse range of films.

Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

Elektrostal supports aspiring entrepreneurs and fosters a culture of innovation, providing opportunities for startups and business development.

Offers a range of housing options.

Elektrostal provides diverse housing options, including apartments, houses, and residential complexes, catering to different lifestyles and budgets.

Home to notable sports teams.

Elektrostal is proud of its sports legacy, with several successful sports teams competing at regional and national levels.

Boasts a vibrant nightlife scene.

Residents and visitors can enjoy a lively nightlife in Elektrostal, with numerous bars, clubs, and entertainment venues.

Promotes cultural exchange and international relations.

Elektrostal actively engages in international partnerships, cultural exchanges, and diplomatic collaborations to foster global connections.

Surrounded by beautiful nature reserves.

Nearby nature reserves, such as the Barybino Forest and Luchinskoye Lake, offer opportunities for nature enthusiasts to explore and appreciate the region’s biodiversity.

Commemorates historical events.

The city pays tribute to significant historical events through memorials, monuments, and exhibitions, ensuring the preservation of collective memory.

Promotes sports and youth development.

Elektrostal invests in sports infrastructure and programs to encourage youth participation, health, and physical fitness.

Hosts annual cultural and artistic festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal celebrates its cultural diversity through festivals dedicated to music, dance, art, and theater.

Provides a picturesque landscape for photography enthusiasts.

The city’s scenic beauty, architectural landmarks, and natural surroundings make it a paradise for photographers.

Connects to Moscow via a direct train line.

The convenient train connection between Elektrostal and Moscow makes commuting between the two cities effortless.

A city with a bright future.

Elektrostal continues to grow and develop, aiming to become a model city in terms of infrastructure, sustainability, and quality of life for its residents.

In conclusion, Elektrostal is a fascinating city with a rich history and a vibrant present. From its origins as a center of steel production to its modern-day status as a hub for education and industry, Elektrostal has plenty to offer both residents and visitors. With its beautiful parks, cultural attractions, and proximity to Moscow, there is no shortage of things to see and do in this dynamic city. Whether you’re interested in exploring its historical landmarks, enjoying outdoor activities, or immersing yourself in the local culture, Elektrostal has something for everyone. So, next time you find yourself in the Moscow region, don’t miss the opportunity to discover the hidden gems of Elektrostal.

Q: What is the population of Elektrostal?

A: As of the latest data, the population of Elektrostal is approximately XXXX.

Q: How far is Elektrostal from Moscow?

A: Elektrostal is located approximately XX kilometers away from Moscow.

Q: Are there any famous landmarks in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to several notable landmarks, including XXXX and XXXX.

Q: What industries are prominent in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal is known for its steel production industry and is also a center for engineering and manufacturing.

Q: Are there any universities or educational institutions in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to XXXX University and several other educational institutions.

Q: What are some popular outdoor activities in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal offers several outdoor activities, such as hiking, cycling, and picnicking in its beautiful parks.

Q: Is Elektrostal well-connected in terms of transportation?

A: Yes, Elektrostal has good transportation links, including trains and buses, making it easily accessible from nearby cities.

Q: Are there any annual events or festivals in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal hosts various events and festivals throughout the year, including XXXX and XXXX.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact:

19th Edition of Global Conference on Catalysis, Chemical Engineering & Technology

Victor Mukhin

  • Scientific Program

Victor Mukhin, Speaker at Chemical Engineering Conferences

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

However, up to now, the main carriers of catalytic additives have been mineral sorbents: silica gels, alumogels. This is obviously due to the fact that they consist of pure homogeneous components SiO2 and Al2O3, respectively. It is generally known that impurities, especially the ash elements, are catalytic poisons that reduce the effectiveness of the catalyst. Therefore, carbon sorbents with 5-15% by weight of ash elements in their composition are not used in the above mentioned technologies. However, in such an important field as a gas-mask technique, carbon sorbents (active carbons) are carriers of catalytic additives, providing effective protection of a person against any types of potent poisonous substances (PPS). In ESPE “JSC "Neorganika" there has been developed the technology of unique ashless spherical carbon carrier-catalysts by the method of liquid forming of furfural copolymers with subsequent gas-vapor activation, brand PAC. Active carbons PAC have 100% qualitative characteristics of the three main properties of carbon sorbents: strength - 100%, the proportion of sorbing pores in the pore space – 100%, purity - 100% (ash content is close to zero). A particularly outstanding feature of active PAC carbons is their uniquely high mechanical compressive strength of 740 ± 40 MPa, which is 3-7 times larger than that of  such materials as granite, quartzite, electric coal, and is comparable to the value for cast iron - 400-1000 MPa. This allows the PAC to operate under severe conditions in moving and fluidized beds.  Obviously, it is time to actively develop catalysts based on PAC sorbents for oil refining, petrochemicals, gas processing and various technologies of organic synthesis.

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents.     Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.   

Quick Links

  • Conference Brochure
  • Tentative Program

Watsapp

IMAGES

  1. 25 Thesis Statement Examples (2024)

    thesis statements universal healthcare

  2. 45 Perfect Thesis Statement Templates (+ Examples) ᐅ TemplateLab

    thesis statements universal healthcare

  3. 45 Perfect Thesis Statement Templates (+ Examples) ᐅ TemplateLab

    thesis statements universal healthcare

  4. Universal Health Care Essay

    thesis statements universal healthcare

  5. 220+ Thesis Statement Examples, How to Write, Format, Tips

    thesis statements universal healthcare

  6. How to Write a Good Thesis Statement: Tips & Examples

    thesis statements universal healthcare

VIDEO

  1. Writing Thesis Statements & Identifying Genre/Mode

  2. Universal Health Care: The Breakdown

  3. English 1AS Workshop: Thesis Statements & Support

  4. Thesis Statements: Patterns

  5. Writing Focused Thesis Statements for Expositions

  6. Sustaining HIV Services through Universal Health Coverage: Cameroon's Experience

COMMENTS

  1. Healthcare Thesis Statement Examples: Universal Healthcare Provision

    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 ...

  2. PDF The United States Healthcare System From a Comparative Perspective: the

    provide universal healthcare and achieve lower healthcare costs, longer life expectancies, and more equitable care for their citizens. In this thesis, an assessment of the ongoing challenges of the American healthcare system will be compared to universal healthcare systems around the world.

  3. PDF Arguments and counterarguments about universal health care Arguments by

    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 ...

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

    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 ...

  5. Thesis statement: The federal government should enact a program of

    Thesis statement: The federal government should enact a program of universal health care to better protect and serve all of its citizens. I. The uninsured constitute a larger and more diverse segment of our population than most people realize. The 2003 National Health Interview Survey showed that 42.3 million Americans (14.8%) were uninsured at ...

  6. Universal Health Coverage: The Benefits of Implementation in the United

    Personal Statement. I am a current public health student at Lake Washington Institute of Technology. My purpose for developing this research paper is to bring awareness to the advantages and challenges of implementing a universal health coverage system in the United States. ... para. 2). Universal health care has many benefits that could ...

  7. PDF The Protective Effects of Universal Healthcare on the Spread and

    Universal Healthcare Definitions Universal Healthcare (UHC) has become a major focus of global health policy in recent years, as the extension of universal healthcare to the entirety of the global population by the year 2030 is a sustainable development goal of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO).

  8. PDF A MORAL OBLIGATION FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE By Paige Magee A Thesis

    2019. Two major claims are defended in the following thesis: 1.) that the United States. has a moral obligation to provide and enforce a universal minimum of healthcare for its. citizens; and 2.) that the citizenry of the United States equally has a civic duty to support. such a policy.

  9. PDF United States Healthcare Reform: A Comprehensive Review of

    Universal healthcare: A country has universal healthcare when every citizen has a guaranteed right to healthcare coverage. The World Health Organization (2019) defines universal healthcare coverage as coverage that is accessible to everyone regardless of the ability to pay, that has quality that is good enough to improve the

  10. Exploring Universal Healthcare for the United States

    The Centers for Medicare. and Medicaid Services (CMS) promoted four primary goals of the Affordable Care Act: a) make. healthcare insurance more affordable, b) provide consumers with subsidies that lower costs for. households with low income, c) expand state Medicaid programs to improve access to health.

  11. Universal Healthcare: Thesis Statement

    Universal Healthcare: Thesis Statement. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. The United States is no doubt one of the best developed countries in the world. At the forefront of technology and scientific development, the country boasts of ...

  12. Universal Healthcare Essays

    Universal Healthcare: Thesis Statement . Health Care Policy Universal Health Care . The United States is no doubt one of the best developed countries in the world. At the forefront of technology and scientific development, the country boasts of its high standards of living. However, a look at healthcare, which is the basic pillar of a nation ...

  13. The Importance of Universal Health Care in Improving Our Nation's

    This policy statement advocates for universal health care as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in October 2019. The statement promotes the overall goal of achieving a system that cares for everyone. It refrains from supporting one particular system, as the substantial topic of payment models deserves singular attention and is ...

  14. The United States Should Adopt a Universal Healthcare System

    Introduction and Thesis According to the World Health Organization, universal health coverage is people having access to the health services they require, ranging from prevention to rehabilitation, which will be afforded to them despite their socioeconomic status. There are many different countries that provide its citizens universal healthcare ...

  15. Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons

    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.

  16. Universal Healthcare in America Study: Thesis Statement

    Main Point #2: Contrary to the belief of Universal Healthcare's opponents, it actually lowers the healthcare costs for an economy. A. Despite being the only wealthy and developed nation without universal healthcare coverage, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the United States spent $3.5 trillion in 2017 for healthcare costs.

  17. Thesis Statement For Universal Health Care

    Thesis Statement For Universal Health Care. Decent Essays. 1071 Words. 5 Pages. Open Document. "Health care is an essential requirement for well being" (Maruthappu). All over the world, health care is a constant concern because of the difficulty maintaining quality and affordability. In the United States, health care reform has been a huge ...

  18. Exploring Universal Healthcare for the United States

    This study compared four different healthcare systems, one of which was the U.S.'s healthcare system based on a business model, and healthcare systems of Canada, the U.K., and Germany based on a universal healthcare model. This study aimed to explore how countries with universal healthcare models operate compared to the U.S. healthcare system.

  19. PDF Persuasive Presentation in Support of Universal Health Care in the US

    II. Thesis Statement: Today I will provide arguments showing you why the United States should provide Universal Health Care for all its citizens. III. Preview of Main Points: I will do this by arguing: A. The US Government has failed in its obligation to provide for the welfare of millions of uninsured Americans. B. Universal Health Care is ...

  20. Elektrostal Map

    Elektrostal is a city in Moscow Oblast, Russia, located 58 kilometers east of Moscow. Elektrostal has about 158,000 residents. Mapcarta, the open map.

  21. Victor Mukhin

    Catalysis Conference is a networking event covering all topics in catalysis, chemistry, chemical engineering and technology during October 19-21, 2017 in Las Vegas, USA. Well noted as well attended meeting among all other annual catalysis conferences 2018, chemical engineering conferences 2018 and chemistry webinars.

  22. 40 Facts About Elektrostal

    40 Facts About Elektrostal. Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to ...

  23. Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental

    Catalysis Conference is a networking event covering all topics in catalysis, chemistry, chemical engineering and technology during October 19-21, 2017 in Las Vegas, USA. Well noted as well attended meeting among all other annual catalysis conferences 2018, chemical engineering conferences 2018 and chemistry webinars.