Arguments Against Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare in the U.S. would be a bad idea for the reason that the government would have to spend more money, which means that the American people would have to pay higher taxes than we already do. In the U.S.A. the public pays $4,103.82 per person and the private cost per person is $4,609.18 which put together is more than $8,000.00 dollars per person.If you are to have universal health care in America government spending would have to increase. But you can't just take a country where the government spends about 47% of the health care cost in the U.S. to a single-payer. Universal health care, government spending would have to increase and if government spending increased taxes would be higher.

Providing healthcare coverage to all citizens can be challenging to many countries and only the most developed countries have adequate resources to truly provide universal coverage to their citizens. Still, when coverage and resources are not sufficient, care is rationed through limited supply or limited access. Most countries have mechanisms in place, however, to insure that affordability does not limit access to necessary services.

It can be argued that establishing Universal Healthcare would be a drain of government resources and would necessitate subsidization by taxes. A Universal Healthcare system provided for all citizens would create an extra tax on

           In a country where healthcare is a decision, many debate if our country should keep our health care system privatized. Health care is an essential need in society because individual health can change at any time without warning at any time. While there are both pros and cons of this system, the pros outway the cons. I believe that our nation should ensure basic health care to all legal citizens, no matter the class. Many Americans fall into circumstances where they are not able to pay the expensive bills that privatized insurance companies billhave so they do not have chose to not have insurance at all. Universal health care gives those people the means of financial support when they medically need

The subject matter of universal health care is important because the current system of health care in America is economically and morally wrong. The United States spends more than double on health care and still millions are left without coverage. During the Progressive Era, AALL (American Association of Labor Legislation) proposed a bill which provided coverage to those making less than $1200 and would be provided services such as physicians, hospitals, and nurse which would be shared between workers, employers, and the state. This system was opposed by the AFL (American Federation of Labor) because it felt this movement would weaken unions. Furthermore, Bill Clinton proposed a system of universal health care which would provide health coverage

Better quality health care will affect the life expectancy rate and the expenses. Patients expect doctors and hospitals to deliver the best possible care. The major issue with the quality of health care is “medical errors result from faulty systems… not individuals” (Hughes). In order to ensure patient safety and positive outcomes, hospitals have to assess for themselves the various different aspects they need to improve on. For example, hospitals could have a shortage ranging from staff, medication, or equipment. Through universal health care, “doctors… can focus on patient care”, which will aid in improving treatments for each individual (White). Along with this, there will be more government funding to improve hospitals as a means to help patients. Countries under universal health care coverage have a better quality of care, while the “United States [is ranked] last overall” (“Right to Health Care”). These benefits of medical treatments of universal health care are vital to American

"Universal healthcare refers to a healthcare system that provides benefits to all persons in a particular country." (Definition of "Universal Healthcare Coverage", Investopedia.com). This form of healthcare is used among the richest countries, Ex. Canada and France. Other rich countries that use the Universal Healthcare system spend far less than the United States does. Although the U.S spends more on healthcare, “The U.S ranks 28th below almost all other rich countries, when it comes to the quality of its healthcare assessed by UN parameters (pdf, p.13)"(Annalisa Merreli, A history of why the US is the only rich country without universal healthcare, qz.com). These statistics call for a change. The United States should adopt universal healthcare because it would benefit business, provide equal access to healthcare, and is a human right.

Universal healthcare has been a big issue and a major problem for Americans, especially for people without it. Universal health care (Montgomery, Kelly. “Frequently asked questions.” formosapost.com. Health Insurance, 15 Feb. 2017. Web. 14 Nov. 2017.

Why the U.S. Should Not Have Universal Healthcare In a perfect world, everybody would have the means to access medical care; some would even say that it is a basic human right, but universal healthcare would never work in the United States. Many lives are lost due to the fact that the United States doesn’t have free healthcare, but healthcare is a privilege that one must work for; not a right. The United States was founded upon the belief that the government should not play a significant role in citizens’ lives and having universal healthcare would not only clash with that belief, but it would create longer wait times and lesser quality of medical care, increase the national debt, and create a shortage of medical practitioners; therefore, the United States should not have universal healthcare.

One of the major problems facing our country today is the healthcare crisis. The inequality in our current healthcare system has created a huge gap in the difference between the level and the quality of healthcare that different people receive. Having an improved and reliable health care system available for everyone should be a priority that the government must make available. There are countries whose health care system meets the needs of the patients while there are countries whose health care systems need a great amount of overhaul for them to be able to attend to their patients. In this essay I will discuss the healthcare crisis and the differences in many countries

To be or Not To be: A comprehensive in depth review addressing the various sides of providing Americans with a Universal Healthcare system and weighing its Pros and Cons.

P3: Universal Healthcare would improve public health overall, with preventative care and overall health management.

On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.

In line with the majority of other developed countries, the United Kingdom (UK) has offered its citizens a universal health care system that is free at the point of service. Funded primarily by taxation, the system is popular and efficient. However, along with most other health care systems around the world, it faces a series of challenges if it is to maintain viability, in the twenty-first century. These issues include; long waiting times, an aging population, funding challenges and the increasing cost of technology.

Worldwide, approximately 1.3 billion people do not have access to affordable and efficient healthcare and out of those who have access, almost 170 million are forced to spend around 40 % of their income on medical treatment (Asante et al,2016).In low and middle income countries (LMICs), the major constraint to the access of healthcare is financial burden, where out-of-pocket payments (OPP) contribute to approximately 50 % of total health expenditure (WHO, 2010). As a result, in these countries there is high probability of many households being pushed into poverty due to high medical expenses (McIntyre,2006).The matter of concern in LMICS is that poor and disadvantaged groups of population do not have access to adequate quality of healthcare.For instance, according to WHO (2010) up to 20 % of women in rich population are more likely to have a birth attended by skilled health worker than a poor woman. Therefore, taking an action to address health inequities faced in these countries would save up to 700,000 women.