Implementing Universal Healthcare Coverage For All Citizens

The United States is known as one of the greatest world powers: however it is held back by its weak healthcare system. As of 2010 the US healthcare system currently ranks the 37th best out of 190 countries. Before the introduction of the Affordable Care Ac in 2010, the united States had an individual insurance market. It was the responsibility of the individual or their employer, to take care of their healthcare costs. On top of this millions of people could be denied insurance by different agencies due to pre-existing claims. Healthcare was expensive, but the costs were nothing compared to the medical bills owed by an uninsured person. Universal healthcare is a basic right not a privilege. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have health insurance no matter his or her income. Isn’t this the principle of freedom and basic right what America was based on? On half of all bankruptcies in the United States are due to an inability to pay medical bills. These problems all pose a question and the answer Is Universal Healthcare. The federal government has the interest of all American citizens on its mind and universal healthcare is a perfect way of highlighting that fact. The Affordable Care act provides low cost healthcare to the previously uninsured and guarantees continued healthcare in the case of job loss. Many people are still opposed to this act. This new system of universal healthcare will lead to improvements within the lives of American Citizens. There are many

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

Without our health, we have nothing. Money, friends and family, happiness--all are afterthoughts without our health. As such, both as individuals and as a society, maintaining our health must be an indispensable priority. Despite the many faults of our healthcare system, Americans realize this. Healthcare is undoubtedly a major concern in the United States. The recent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare,” the heated debates on healthcare across the nation, and the over one trillion dollars spent per year by the government on healthcare, all show our prioritization of health ("Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go"). Furthermore, a strong majority of

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.

A national health care system in the United States has been a contentious topic of debate for over a century. Social reformists have been fighting for universal health care for all Americans, while the opposition claims that a “social” heath care system has no place in the ‘Land of the Free’.

Disputing that the current Healthcare System (Obamacare) in the United States needs reform is not difficult. Although the current system is a step up from the previous system, lobbying and reform to get a Universal Healthcare bill passed resulted in the original legislation being rewritten to an almost unrecognizable level. However, true Universal Healthcare creates a system that is more affordable by eliminating fluctuating copays and premiums, Universal Healthcare increases accessibility for everyone by eliminating exclusions to care, and finally it takes healthcare out of the hands of multibillion dollar companies and puts

One of the great hypocrisies of American culture is found in its health care system. The United States claims in its Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and that all of these men have the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet this is the same country that allows over 120 people to die each day because they are uninsured. How can this nation claim that all are created equal and have a right to life when they deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it? This issue has come on the scene relatively soon, having only truly been discussed beginning in the early 20th century. Since that time, a fear of socialism stemming from tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the century has placed a stigma on the concept of universal health care because it is similar to the Soviet’s socialized medicine. In recent years, President Obama made great strides toward universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, but some would argue that while America is on the right track, more can be done to care for the nation’s poor. Others argue that the economic impact of such policies could cause problems for America. Though creating a universal health care system has complex logistical and economic consequences, health care is an internationally acknowledged human right and should not be denied to the American people.

While campaigning for the 2016 presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed that America should adopt a single-payer health care system. In Sanders’s plan, there would have been only one insurance program that would have covered everyone in the United States; in effect, other programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and especially private insurance would be discontinued (Holahan, 2016, p. 1). If Sanders’s proposal were to be carried out, it would be a drastic change from the current system which predominately comprises of private insurance and hospitals under limited government regulations. The debate reopened on whether or not a single-payer system would be an effective system health care system or economically viable. Due to the contrasting nature of current health care system in the United States, policymakers should approach proposals of single-payer health care systems with caution and an understanding of the benefits and the drawbacks by examining the successes and failures of real-world systems.

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

Health care is a very expensive issue here in the United Sates and the current system is not sustainable at its current state. Republicans for the last 8 years have tried to replace the current system (ACA) with a more cost effective one, but this has been a daunting task.

The U.S. is an industrialized nation that continues to be behind on providing health care coverage to all citizens. However, the German health care system came up with a plan that ensured all citizens are provided with some form of health care coverage; nevertheless, the U.S. continues to dispute health care reform and how to provide coverage to all citizens. “Health spending per capita in the United States is much higher than in other countries – at least $2,535 dollars, or 51%, higher than Norway, the next largest per capita spender. Furthermore, the United States spends nearly double the average $3,923 for the 15 countries ("Health Care Cost," 2011, table 1)”.

According to Squires and Chloe, the United States of America is considered as the greatest country in the world, with the largest economy, military powers, freedom of religion and speech, and one of the most successful democrats (2). However, the United States in the only western modernized nation that does not offer free healthcare services to all its citizens. Apparently, the costs of the healthcare services to the uninsured individuals in the US are prohibitive, where the insurance companies are interested in making higher profit margins than providing adequate health care to the insured (Squires and Chloe 4). These conditions are unexpectable and incompatible with the United States

U.S. health care reform is currently one of the most heavily discussed topics in health discourse and politics. After former President Clinton’s failed attempt at health care reform in the mid-1990s, the Bush administration showed no serious efforts at achieving universal health coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans. With Barack Obama as the current U.S. President, health care reform is once again a top priority. President Obama has made a promise to “provide affordable, comprehensive, and portable health coverage for all Americans…” by the end of his first term (Barackobama.com). The heated debate between the two major political parties over health care reform revolves around how to pay for it and more importantly, whether it

Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.

Indonesia is making health sector reform to all its citizens by enacting the universal health coverage starting from January 2014. This program will be under the agency known as Social Security Provider or Badan Penyelenggaran Jaminan Sosial (BPJS). Every Indonesian citizen and foreigners who have lived in Indonesia for a minimum of six months shall be a member of BPJS. This is in accordance with the article 14 of Law BPJS. Each company must register its workers as a member of BPJS. Each participant will be levied on BPJS dues which is determined later. As for the poor, BPJS dues will be paid by the government through the dues assistance. Being a participant in BPJS not only mandatory for workers in the formal sector, but also informal workers. Informal workers are also required to be a member of BPJS. Workers must register and pay the dues in accordance with the desired level of benefits.