Should the United States have Universal Health Care?

Should the United States have Universal Health Care?

Tags: #health #usa
by kate added 1 year ago

Yes Add Point
  • Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and Taiwan all have universal health care access and the model has worked in those countries. There is not much else needed in this argument other than the foundational evidence that this system can work and keep the solvency mentioned in the previous two contentions.

    by kate added 1 year ago 0 2

    Supporting Argument

    Affirming that there have been numerous successful international precedents regarding universal health care, the fact that other countries provide successful universal health care alone is not enough for the United States to follow in their footsteps. This is because it is important to compare the frameworks of health care systems internationally to the United States' and divulge in the similarities and differences rather than only outline a simple fact of other countries providing universal health care. A famous English phrase that can be applied to this supplemental argument is " would you jump off a cliff if your friend did". Meaning, just becuase other countries have successfully provided universal health care (i.e., jumping off a cliff) does not mean the U.S. should do so as well. However, after comparison and evaluation, if the same act is suitable for the U.S., then it should proceed to do the same. That being said, S. Leonard Syme, former community health professor at the University of California at Berkeley, compares health care systems that guarantee universal health care to the U.S. system proving that the health care sytems of those other industrialized countries are more inexpensive and effective:

    "The United States ranks at the bottom of all industrialized countries in overall mortality, life expectancy, and infant mortality. We rank below such countries as Spain, Austria, Italy, and the United Kingdom but above such countries as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Turkey. And the medical care costs of high-ranking countries are a fraction of those in the United States. The United States contains about 5 percent of the world's population, but the amount of money spent on medical care is more than 50 percent of what the world spends. We in the United States spend more on medical care per capita than any country in the world, but our results are the poorest among industrialized nations of the world." (Health Affairs, March/April 2008, pp. 458-459).

    This evidence provides proof that in comparison countries providing universal health care are superior to the U.S. in multiple areas regarding medical services and public health.

    by Toheedm added 1 year ago 1 0

    Firstly, when people are healthy and have all of the treatment they need, they are less likely to miss work due to illness – Or will return to work in less time, creating a more productive economy. A functional workforce is necessary for a country like the United States to maintain financial stability.

    Also, because of the fact that the insurance based healthcare system is a corporate run scheme from the ground up, if the government took control and granted universal access, the cost of medical care would drop – meaning the government would not have to pay as much to support the cost of granting health care, as the people are paying now.

    In addition, Medical bankruptcy in the United States is a serious issue. In 2013 it was estimated that households containing a total of 1.7 Million people declared bankruptcy due to medical bills.[1] When bankruptcy is declared people often turn to forms of government welfare for sometimes long periods of times just to survive. Not only does universal health care help the people by changing the critical debt so many Americans face, but it helps the government and economy by putting less strain on the system to have to give welfare to those who lose everything because of medical debt.


    by kate added 1 year ago 0 1

    The United States acknowledges the right to universal health care in the preamble of its own constitution[1] which states: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Furthermore, the right to life and the promotion of general welfare implicitly and explicitly dictate that healthcare is a universal right to every citizen within the United States. If that is not enough, America signed the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2], which, in Article 25 Section 1 states:

    “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”

    The Center for Disease Control recently conducted a study that said 44,789 Americans die every year because of a lack of access to health care. This is a foundational human rights grievance that the United States must address.[3]




    by kate added 1 year ago 0 1

    Counter Argument

    The Preamble to the constitution says, “promote general welfare” not “provide general welfare. Also, the United States constitution only insures “certain inalienable rights endowed by your creator” (Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness). However, there is no room in the constitution for granting people the right to a service offered by another human being.

    by petepolitic added 1 year ago 1 0

    The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution asserts, "No State...shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...". With the words "deprive" and "life" being stressed, it can be interpreted that by law the US Government is not allowed to deny a person from living. This therefore raises the question on how an individual is supposed to live and sustain their life if they are not able to attain services such as health care because of personal economic difficulties-which, as clarified subsequently, is a right and not a privilege since it is protected by law. Following this line of reasoning, the opportunity to attain health care in the first place for individuals with inadequate economic requirements is out of question, which therefore violates the idea of equality under the US Constitution if certain individuals are able to attain health care while others are not.

    by Toheedm added 1 year ago 1 0

  • Free services in the United States always come at a cost, and that cost is a tax hike. At a time where Americans are being taxed for every single aspect of being alive, and sometimes taxed even more with the requirement for permits and licenses to do anything. A majority (but not all) of these taxes and fees for permits are unnecessary, and are simply used to generate funds for the government. However, at least in all those instances, the people paying the government, are actually using the service they are paying for. If the government increases taxes on the entire public for the purpose of funding universal healthcare, there is a significant portion of the population who will be paying for healthcare that do not use it.

    This concept bites right into the second point of this argument: what happens if people start paying for a service, they will use it even when they don’t need it. Once people (who have never paid out of pocket for this service before) go for a year or two, paying for said service they do not use, but do legally have access to, people will begin to go to medical professionals for everything. “Hey, I am paying for it right? Why not get free medicine for the sniffles?” The potential burden on the government and sequentially, the tax payer, has no limit. This vacuum could create a never ending cycle that would end up leaving America in a worse place than when it started, and also with less doctors if you cross apply the first contention here. 

    Another cost relates to that of payment of medical doctors. The importance of medical practice is too great in such a large country to have the salaries of medical professionals restricted and limited to what the government decides their salaries should be. The government cannot afford to give the salaries required to medical professionals, to keep a large enough number of people interested in dedicating their life to that field. 

    by petepolitic added 1 year ago 1 0

    A universal healthcare system will harm the progression of medical science. Does it cost a lot of money to be treated by a doctor or get new medication? Yes, but that money must go to the doctors who are treating illness, to companies that are producing drugs and it must also go to the scientists who are researching new medicine and medical equipment to help protect human longevity. America has fathered astounding medical advances that have benefited the entire world, but those developments would not have taken place if there was no money for the research and development.

    by petepolitic added 1 year ago 1 0

    When a service that is provided for free by the government becomes oversaturated by the users of that service, a few things end up taking place: A critical shortage of medical professionals is where it will begin. Cross apply the argument that there will already be a decreased number of doctors due to salary cuts, and add a newfound flood of people who are visiting hospitals and doctor’s offices for everything, and there will quickly be a severe short staffing issue. How will that short staffing issue affect the public? Well you can look to Canada for that answer:

    • The first thing that will happen in the United States is the government rationing of health services. When this occurs, some people’s lives, health, and wellbeing, will be categorically placed above the lives of others. That is the simple nature of rationing, determining who gets what, and when, based on an arbitrary definition of need.
    • There is also the public health concern of longer wait times for treatment. With an oversaturated consumer market and not enough medical professionals to meet the demands, there will be a heavy increase in the amount of time it takes to get treated (if you’re treated at all). So, the wait time, added to the government rationing of health services leads to what Americans will eventually call “taxation without representation” – as they are paying for a service that may be rationed in a way, that will take them too long to receive or might never benefit from at all. Looking to history, ask yourself how Americans generally feel about getting taxed and receiving no benefits for it.
    by petepolitic added 1 year ago 1 0

    A true free market system has never been tried for healthcare anywhere in the world.  Politicians have always taken away any chance at a free market systems in favor of lawyers, drug companies, insurance companys and to line their own pockets.

    A true free market market system might look simaler to Amazon but for healthcare products and services only.  True price transparency.  All items offered would have a price, number of purchases and user feedback.  Drugs, medical procedures, hospital rooms, prosthetics, therapy. sessions, organ transplants, MRIs, etc.

    This would be a closed system with entry via uniue user accounts tied to Social Security numbers.  A users account could act like a Health Savings Account with unlimited tax deductible deposits that can be made by anyone on your behalf.  Friends, family, employer, church, any organization or government body.

    Built on free markets and allowing people to help each other.

    by greg added 1 year ago 0 0