Arguments Against Universal Healthcare

The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.”( Creech, Mark H. “Universal Health Care Is Unbiblical. ) Is access to health care a human right, or a valued social good, or neither? In 2003 the Institute of Medicine published a report, Insuring America's Health, which contained five principles for evaluating various strategies for health care reform. The first principle, "the most basic and important," was that health care coverage should be universal. The idea that access to health care should be universal, however, has become one of the most hotly debated issues in the ongoing discussion of how to reform the U.S. healthcare system. In Opposing Viewpoints: Universal Health Care, authors explores the

Universal Healthcare sounds appealing, but it actually lowers the quality and quantity of healthcare services that are rendered to patients, thus downgrading the healthcare system as a whole.  Not having to pay, with everyone having coverage leads to longer wait times for medical service and many people overusing health care services. Implementation of Universal Healthcare in the United States would lead to a detrimental crippling of the nation’s health system. For those countries that have implemented Universal Healthcare or a system similar to it, all or most aspects of the coverage such as cost and care is generally provided by and tightly controlled by the government, a public-sector committee, or employer-based programs, with most of the funding essentially coming from tax revenues or budget cuts in other areas of spending. This paper will conclude with comparing the US healthcare system to others and how the US has one of the most advanced systems in the world.

Globally, the United States has one of the largest and most convoluted healthcare systems, whereas universal healthcare coverage seems extremely farfetched. Annually, the US spends over $3 trillion on healthcare. Nevertheless, we have the worst health outcomes when compared to other industrialized countries. As stated by Anja Rudiger (2008), “Recent data suggest that around 101,000 deaths a year can be attributed to the underperformance of the US healthcare system.” Thus, the United States’ healthcare system greatly relies on revenue. Both funding and the distribution of services are commercially structured and held accountable by investors to increase financial gains. According to Andrew Jameton and Jessica Pierce (1997), “the US healthcare system increasing appears to have

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

Health care spending in the United States of America as a percentage of the economy has reached astonishing heights, equating to 17.7 percent. This number is shocking when compared to other counties; in Australia health care is 8.9 percent, in United Kingdom 9.4 percent, in Canada 11.2 percent. If the American health care system were to hypothetically become its own economy, it would be the fifth-largest in the world. While these statistics sound troubling, they lead us to look for answers about the problems surrounding our system. The first health insurance company was created in the 1930s to give all American families an equal opportunity for hospital care and eventually led to a nationwide economic and social controversy that erupted in the 1990s and continued to be shaped by the government, insurance companies, doctors, and American citizens. In this paper, I will go in to detail about the various opinions regarding the controversy, the history behind health insurance companies, and the main dilemmas brought out by the health care crisis. Greedy insurance companies combined with high costs of doctor visits and pharmaceutical drugs or the inefficient hospitals all over America can only describe the beginning to this in depth crisis. Recently, the United States health care industry has become know for the outrageous costs of insurance models, developments of various social and health services programs, and the frequent changes in medicinal technology.

Some health care costs may be paid by the patient and some health care costs may be covered by the universal health insurance program. There is perhaps no domain of economic activity that has generated more controversy in the United States than health care. In the advanced capitalist world, the United States is the only country within which the market plays a substantial role in the delivery of health care services; all other countries have one form or another of universal, publicly supported health care policies. In other intance if we differ from what is universal health from socialized heatlh. Some people refer to universal health care as socialized medicine. The term “socialized medicine” is primarily used for only in the United States by those who do not support the idea of universal health care(cite). Given the understanding that outside the US, is a different situation saying that the terms most used are universal health care or public health

           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

“That the U.S. health care system is broken and needs to be fixed is widely agreed to be true” (Universal Health Care Opposing Views p 19) is immediately apparent following a brief research of the organization of health care in the nation. There is an inability to control rising health care costs, and the system, although considered the most technologically advanced in the world, is riddled with waste and inefficiency. Year on year, doctors are spending increasingly more time dealing with insurance related administrative work rather than healing patients, there is gross overuse of care because employees view healthcare as part of a work-related benefit package, access to health care is based on ability to pay, and there is constant anxiety caused by the fear of losing employer-sponsored coverage. In contrast, a system of universal healthcare offers free services that are accessible to all, releases doctors from insurance paperwork to focus on healing, removes overuse of care because citizens fund the services through the payment of taxes, and may lead to healthier populations, among other things. Therefore, although vastly different from the current system, one could consider whether the introduction of universal healthcare would be beneficial for the USA?

“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 debate topic. The purpose of health care is to satisfy the medical needs of an individual. However, many Americans consider health care a “luxury,”because millions of low-income families cannot afford the same care as the middle or high class. In this case, the right to quality and affordable health care is not extended to all Americans. Universal health care will ensure a higher life expectancy, reduce the cost of medical treatment through a single-payer method, and improve medical treatments.

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

In Canada, although private insurance companies exist they are not allowed to cover services provided under provincial plans. In each province only one public insurance entity is responsible for reimbursing hospitals and physicians. Patients are free to choose their physicians, but they do not

Canada has a system that consists of socialized health insurance plans that provide coverage to all its citizens. Canada health care is largely government-funded, with most services provided by private enterprises with some publicly funds all, which is controlled and administered, within guidelines set by the federal government ("Healthy Canadians: A Federal report on Comparable Health Indicators ", 2009).

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.

I didn’t bulk this into a PRO and CON section per say. I felt like it would flow better and make more sense if I could play pro/con on each system.

American health care is unique due to its fragmented structure, which makes it difficult to grasp exactly what all it entails. The system is based on capitalistic nature where private insurers end up with substantial authority, with a few government-sponsored programs that intervene to assist and cover people, like with Medicare and Medicaid. Often, this means that the wage of doctors/physicians depends on the amount of people they see, which causes the quality of care they give to have less of a priority indirectly. The system causes doctors to see patient after patient, and in such a short amount of time, the only thing they can do is try to fix the problem the best they can (Heineman and Froemke). Patients can never be fully healed, but they will constantly visit various doctors and pay for a multitude of prescriptions and procedures. This interpretation seems to be harsh in suggesting that healthcare providers