thesis for universal healthcare

Healthcare Thesis Statement: Examples of Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

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.

• A Behavioural Health Clinic Mission
• The Role of Health Care Systems and Industrial System Engineering in Improvement of Health
• The Pros and Cons of Using Pie Charts in Healthcare
• Skin Grafting and Its Pros and Cons
• Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion Pros & 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)
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Medicina (Kaunas)

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

Gabriel zieff.

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

Zachary Y. Kerr

Justin b. moore.

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

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

2. Argument against Universal Healthcare

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

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

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

3. Argument for Universal Healthcare

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

Preventive Initiatives within A Universal Healthcare Model

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

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

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

4. Conclusions

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

Author Contributions

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

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

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

Essay Service Examples Health Health Care

Universal Healthcare Essays

27 samples in this category

The government offers free healthcare services but not to everyone. According to the World Health Organization, universal health coverage is the most important aspect of eliminating socioeconomic disparities and a critical component of sustainable growth. In several countries, universal health coverage is sought by a mix of private and public...

The government offers free healthcare services but not to everyone. According to the World Health Organization, universal health coverage is the most important aspect of eliminating socioeconomic disparities and a critical component of sustainable growth. In several countries, universal health coverage is sought by a mix of private and public sector healthcare programs (Plianbangchang 2018). The government gives older people above 65 years of age free medical services; they also consider younger people suffering from disabilities and people who have renal issues. It definitely means that the government does not consider the other members of society, especially the working class. My essay will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of universal healthcare due to the government not offering free medical services to everyone.

Universal health care exemplifies nationwide healthcare programs in which all citizens have equal access to superior healthcare facilities regardless of individual or familial financial circumstances (Maruthappu, Ologunde, and Gunarajasingam 2013). Furthermore, universal health care encompasses social programs that include both nonmedical and medical services and infrastructure that is critical in promoting public health. Furthermore, universal health care (UHC) can significantly advance the trajectory of humanoid development. However, to achieve UHC, the government and the public health community must mobilize significant financial, technical, and human capital while still avoiding implementation challenges.

Many people will be glad and overwhelmed when they can walk into a hospital and feel optimistic that they will receive medical assistance regardless of their financial status (Jewell and McGiffert 2009). This will bring life to many citizens who were dying and suffering because they cannot afford to pay for medical bills, but the government has helped this group of people at the expense of the working-class group. UHC is also essential for a variety of reasons. First, preserving everyone’s mental and physical well-being is compatible with distributive justice ethics and proper behavior. The second explanation is related to the recognition of health as a fundamental human right. The ultimate aim is economic, in which UHC modifies market deficiencies related to health, such as the social benefits of sickness prevention and good health, which promote economic welfare at the macroeconomic level.

Furthermore, universal health care benefits society’s overall economic and social growth (LiPuma and Robichaud 2020). Based on primary healthcare, virtually every nation created its national health policies, which were later consolidated into the Global Plan for Health for All. Many countries worldwide have been captivated by the UHC concept application because they see it as a guiding force to assist governments in achieving the goal of good health for all individuals. Furthermore, as the number of sick people grows, governments worldwide have adopted UHC to provide sufficient care and treatment while also improving medical facilities. UHC is critical because it plays a vital role in reducing the rising prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases, which necessitate long-term care and treatment that is prohibitively costly. In addition, ambulatory treatment and public hospitals are typically endorsed and promoted as essential components of national healthcare systems when the UHC approach is used.

The government’s strategic goal of universal health coverage is to ensure that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, has access to the health care they need without financial ruin or the possibility of poverty (Blattner, Price, and Holtkamp 2018). Specific patients, as well as the entire population, are served by UHC facilities. Many national governments worldwide see progress toward UHC as a driving value for the development of healthcare systems to provide a healthy population. Furthermore, the curative and preventive services provided by UHC protect both income and health. The explanation for this is that when we have healthy children in a society, they learn well without any health complications; however, when adults are well, they contribute both economically and socially (Burke, Normand, Barry, and Thomas 2016). Nonetheless, under the concept of universal healthcare, no cash payments will be made that exceeded a certain affordability level for the most unfortunate people. As a result, all governments must decide on the appropriate health services and devise strategies to ensure affordable, accessible, high quality, and effectiveness.

Insurance-based health funding is exceptionally vulnerable to profiteering by the private healthcare industry. UHC not only raises healthcare costs in a country noted for its fiscal prudence, but it also degrades existing public health services due to the increased likelihood of individuals opting for private healthcare (Zieff, Kerr, Moore, and Stoner 2020). As a result, the private sector maximizes its profits by focusing on more cost-effective issues while driving complex, inefficient, and chronic issues into already overburdened public health systems. Furthermore, regardless of the thrust and growth surrounding universal healthcare, we can conclude that the continued neglect of primary healthcare elements will still be the same. Furthermore, recent research indicates that a tax-based public health system improves health equity and comprehensiveness while remaining highly affordable in low and middle-income countries instead of insurance-based universal health coverage.

As much as the government opted for the introduction of universal health care, it is a time-consuming process since it must go through regulatory, taxation, and legislative mechanisms (Kumar, Braeken, Jurcut, Liyanage, and Ylianttila 2020). The majority of people in single-pay systems face financial distress by using healthcare services such as health promotion, support, prevention, palliative care, and recovery. Many people see UHC as a burden because of out-of-pocket expenses as well as catastrophic healthcare costs. The goal of achieving universal healthcare is challenging due to many challenges in healthcare systems, politics, and the economic-political climate. Furthermore, achieving universal health care is complicated by the presence of gross disparities in health status between developed and developing nations, rich and poor, female and male, and other classes.

The government’s free healthcare can make people irresponsible; people might decide not to take care of themselves and live irresponsible lives because the medical services are free (Plianbangchang 2018). The quality of service offered in the hospital will degrade because of the rising number of patients making the doctors and nurses work extra hours attending to patients. In several countries, universal health coverage is sought by a mix of private and public sector healthcare programs. Furthermore, many low- and middle-income countries’ healthcare programs are expanding rapidly in the private sector. The key cause is a shortage of infrastructure and doctors to meet all healthcare needs in the public sector. Nonetheless, almost half of the healthcare funding in low-income countries comes from their own pockets. However, with the anticipated increase in the general fraction of care provided by the private sector, the costs may be financially catastrophic for low-income individuals.

To summarize, the government should not offer free health services to everyone in society but to only the aged and the disabled people who are not in a position to work or earn enough money for paying their medical bills (Jewell and McGiffert 2009). Society should also support universal healthcare and not look down on the individuals using this medical cover as people who are not well off in society. As governments work to ensure that free health care is implemented, they can also strengthen the infrastructures of medical facilities to ensure that the number of patients who come for treatment is well cared for and that they access all of the available services to them.

The Affordable Care Act and Universal Health Care Controversy: Essay

Universal health care system of iran and england: compare and contrast essay, universal healthcare persuasive essay.

800+ verified writers can handle your paper.

Essay on Universal Healthcare in Brazil

Should the government provide free health care: argumentative essay, informative speech for universal healthcare.

Persuasive Speech for True Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare in america study: thesis statement, universal healthcare: persuasive speech, universal healthcare: thesis statement, uk universal healthcare system: essay, essay on economic impact of obesity on the us healthcare system, essay on canada's universal healthcare, essay on universal healthcare in japan, essay on universal healthcare in spain, essay on universal healthcare in switzerland, essay on universal healthcare in thailand, essay on is universal healthcare bad for economy, essay on universal healthcare australia, essay on universal healthcare in malaysia, essay on universal healthcare in new zealand, essay on is universal healthcare a human right, essay on universal healthcare vs socialized medicine, essay on universal healthcare vs single payer, essay on universal healthcare in germany, health essay, arguments for free health care in the uk.

Top similar topics

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

Downloadable Content

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

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

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.