Pros And Cons Of Universal Health Care

Debates on America’s health care system, namely between politicians, have been going on for many years. The U.S. currently has a for-profit private health care system, aside from a few exceptions (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid). While some people are happy with the private system, there are others who would like to move to a universal health care system, where health care for all is publicly funded. America is the only major country without universal health care. Countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and France have all adopted some form of universal health care. People that oppose universal health care argue the system reduces the quality of care provided. They believe the private system is the most innovative due to
the principles of supply and demand. On the other hand, with a very high number of people uninsured, most people agree that the U.S. health care system needs a degree of changes. Moving to universal health care would benefit America greatly because it would provide coverage for everyone, it would cut overall health care spending and it would lead to better care. The U.S.
should implement universal health care because it would provide coverage for all of its citizens. Another term for universal health care is single-payer insurance, which best describes its function. With universal health care, doctors still run private practices but they only deal with one insurer, that insurer is the government. The government funds health care through taxation, this is the reason everyone receives coverage under universal health care. Since President Obama implemented the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, millions of people have been able to get coverage. However, there are millions more who still do not have health insurance. In an article written by Amy Goldstein for The Washington Post, she notes there are currently “…10.5 million uninsured Americans” (Web). The term universal health care seems to be unpopular with many people but the majority of Americans are in favor of its main purpose. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, “Sixty-four percent agree that the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American” (qtd. in Kingson). As a country that prides itself in doing what is best for its citizens, America should provide health care for all. Providing health coverage is a moral issue, it should not be available only to those who can afford it, health care is no different than public safety. Any individual would have a hard time explaining how America is willing to provide life-saving services through a police
department or fire station, but not do the same when someone needs life-saving health care. Another benefit of shifting to a universal health care system is the reduction of overall health care costs.
According to the authors of America Needs Universal Health Care, Eric Kingson and John Cornman, in 2014 health care expenditure was sixteen percent of America’s gross domestic product (GDP) (Web). That number is higher than any other country. Insurance rates are high but it does not always mean a person is paying for more or better care. Considering there are so many insurance companies, who all differ in features (i.e. coverage, deductibles, co-pays, premiums), it makes it difficult for buyers to choose the insurance that is best suited for them. Some people end up with too much coverage while others with insufficient coverage. Another factor, due to America’s for-profit system, is the high income produced for drug manufacturers, specialists, and others who have influence over policy. For instance, consider the fact that “U.S. residents spend $97 billion a year in excessive administrative charges to insurance companies” (Kingson and Cornmana). The high health care costs reduce working people’s take-home pay. Therefore, not only would cutting this type of excessive spending help the working class save money, it would help fund a universal health care program that would cover all
citizens. Finally, universal health care would produce better care because this system is less stressful for doctors. Sara Robinson, a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future, gives her point of view as “both a health-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen.” Robinson writes that doctors in Canada are more relaxed because they do not have to fight battles with insurances over payments or what they will cover (Web). Due to the government being the single insurer, the process for payment is streamlined. This also means doctors do not have to hire as much staff to deal with the many insurers that a for-profit system has. When doctors are not preoccupied with ensuring payment, they can be more focused and also more generous with their time. In this instance, patients are able to feel at ease knowing their doctor is not distracted and they also have the chance to ask more questions regarding their health, because they do not feel rushed. There is another major factor that contributes to a less stressful environment for doctors. According to Robinson, Canadian doctors “pay lower malpractice insurance fees” (Web). A person is less likely to sue a doctor if the medical costs, resulting from a procedure gone wrong, are covered. Most people sue because they need the money to pay for future care. Even if a person does sue, the lawsuit does not need to include payment for future medical costs, subsequently reducing the insurance company’s liability. Although coverage, decreased spending and quality of care are great reasons for implementing universal health care, opponents fear that under universal health care, America would apply rationing of care. Doctor David Gratzer, who has written extensively on both the American and Canadian heath care systems, wrote an essay named “Where Would You Rather Be Sick?” featured in The Presence of Others, where he argues this point (250). Doctor Gratzer contends this is an area where universal health care (specifically in Canada) falls short, because they underserve patients in order to reduce the wild growth of spending (Web). The fact is that Canada does ration health care, but so does the U.S. The difference is Canadians ration by need, patient prioritizing designates which patients get care first. It would be impossible to give all citizens every service they desire. On the other hand, Americans ration on the patient’s ability to pay. In an article written for Physicians For A National Health Program (PNHP), Doctor Aaron Carroll, who is the Associate Director for Research at the Indiana University School of Medicine, states that “…adults in the United States are by far the most likely to go without care because of cost” (Web). Contemplate what a person would do if they wanted common services such as emergency room visits or diagnostic tests but had a co-pay of $600. It is likely that person would end up foregoing treatment due to the financial burden. In America, the most affected are those who have the least income. Both countries ration health care but the determining factors are different. The best way for America to ensure coverage for all, to bring overall cost down and to provide quality care for its citizens, is for the country to adopt a universal health care system. Universal health care would reduce cost of care by eliminating insurer bureaucracy and by allowing people to get preventative care without the worry of medical bills. Universal health care has been proven to be effective in many countries around the world. Every country with universal health care spends less money on health care and is still able to receive good care. If America adopted this model, it would mean citizens would not have to worry about the affordability of medical treatment. In turn, if Americans did not have to worry about healthcare, it would grant them a higher quality of life.