Universal health care for everyone in the United States promises only government inefficiency and health care that ignores the realities of the country and the free market.
In addition to providing universal health care for the elderly, low-income individuals, children in need, and military members (and their families), the United States has the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, formerly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), or Obamacare, which ensures that Americans can access affordable health care. the ACA allows Americans to chose the coverage appropriate to their health conditions and incomes. [187]
Veterans’ Affairs, which serves former military members, is an example of a single-payer health care provider, and one that has repeatedly failed its patients. For example, a computer error at the Spokane VA hospital “failed to deliver more than 11,000 orders for specialty care, lab work and other services – without alerting health care providers the orders had been lost.” [188] [189]
Elizabeth Hovde, Policy Analyst and Director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights, argues, “The VA system is not only costly with inconsistent medical care results, it’s an American example of a single-payer, government-run system. We should run from the attempts in our state to decrease competition in the health care system and increase government dependency, leaving our health care at the mercy of a monopolistic system that does not need to be timely or responsive to patients. Policymakers should give veterans meaningful choices among private providers, clinics and hospitals, so vets can choose their own doctors and directly access quality care that meets their needs. Best of all, when the routine break-downs of a government-run system threaten to harm them again, as happened in Spokane, veterans can take their well-earned health benefit and find help elsewhere.” [188] [189]
Further, the challenges of universal health care implementation are vastly different in the U.S. than in other countries, making the current patchwork of health care options the best fit for the country. As researchers summarize, “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. Thus, critics of universal healthcare in the U.S. argue that implementation would not be as feasible—organizationally or financially—as other developed nations.” [190]
And, such a system in the United States would hinder medical innovation and entrepreneurship. “Government control is a large driver of America’s health care problems. Bureaucrats can’t revolutionize health care – only entrepreneurs can. By empowering health care entrepreneurs, we can create an American health care system that is more affordable, accessible, and productive for all,” explains Wayne Winegarden, Senior Fellow in Business and Economics, and Director of the Center for Medical Economics and Innovation at Pacific Research Institute. [190] [191]
Con 2
Universal health care would raise costs for the federal government and, in turn, taxpayers.
Medicare-for-all, a recent universal health care proposal championed by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), would cost an estimated $30 to $40 trillion over ten years. The cost would be the largest single increase to the federal budget ever. [192]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that by 2030 federal health care subsidies will increase by $1.5 to $3.0 trillion. The CBO concludes, “Because the single-payer options that CBO examined would greatly increase federal subsidies for health care, the government would need to implement new financing mechanisms—such as raising existing taxes or introducing new ones, reducing certain spending, or issuing federal debt. As an example, if the government required employers to make contributions toward the cost of health insurance under a single-payer system that would be similar to their contributions under current law, it would have to impose new taxes.” [193]
Despite claims by many, the cost of Medicare for All, or any other universal health care option, could not be financed solely by increased taxes on the wealthy. “[T]axes on the middle class would have to rise in order to pay for it. Those taxes could be imposed directly on workers, indirectly through taxes on employers or consumption, or through a combination of direct or indirect taxes. There is simply not enough available revenue from high earners and businesses to cover the full cost of eliminating premiums, ending all cost-sharing, and expanding coverage to all Americans and for (virtually) all health services,” says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. [195]
An analysis of the Sanders plan “estimates that the average annual cost of the plan would be approximately $2.5 trillion per year creating an average of over a $1 trillion per year financing shortfall. To fund the program, payroll and income taxes would have to increase from a combined 8.4 percent in the Sanders plan to 20 percent while also retaining all remaining tax increases on capital gains, increased marginal tax rates, the estate tax and eliminating tax expenditures…. Overall, over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single payer plan than they do for health insurance today.” [196]
Con 3
Universal health care would increase wait times for basic care and make Americans’ health worse.
The Congressional Budget Office explains, “A single-payer system with little cost sharing for medical services would lead to increased demand for care in the United States because more people would have health insurance and because those already covered would use more services. The extent to which the supply of care would be adequate to meet that increased demand would depend on various factors, such as the payment rates for providers and any measures taken to increase supply. If coverage was nearly universal, cost sharing was very limited, and the payment rates were reduced compared with current law, the demand for medical care would probably exceed the supply of care–with increased wait times for appointments or elective surgeries, greater wait times at doctors’ offices and other facilities, or the need to travel greater distances to receive medical care. Some demand for care might be unmet.” [207]
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. Similarly, average waiting time for elective hospital-based care in the United Kingdom is 46 days, while some patients wait over a year. 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. [17] [190]
Joshua W. Axene of Axene Health Partners, LLC “wonder[s] if Americans really could function under a system that is budget based and would likely have increased waiting times. In America we have created a healthcare culture that pays providers predominantly on a Fee for Service basis (FFS) and allows people to get what they want, when they want it and generally from whoever they want. American healthcare culture always wants the best thing available and has a ‘more is better’ mentality. Under a government sponsored socialized healthcare system, choice would become more limited, timing mandated, and supply and demand would be controlled through the constraints of a healthcare budget…. As much as Americans believe that they are crockpots and can be patient, we are more like microwaves and want things fast and on our own terms. Extended waiting lines will not work in the American system and would decrease the quality of our system as a whole.”
Universal health care for everyone in the United States is argued to offer government inefficiency and health care that ignores the realities of the country and the free market. The current health care options, such as the Affordable Care Act, are seen as providing Americans with access to affordable health care and the ability to choose coverage appropriate for their health conditions and incomes.
The Veterans' Affairs system, which serves former military members, is cited as an example of a single-payer health care provider that has repeatedly failed its patients, with instances of computer errors resulting in lost orders for specialty care. The argument is made that veterans should be given meaningful choices among private providers, clinics, and hospitals, allowing them to choose their own doctors and access quality care that meets their needs.
Critics of universal health care in the U.S. argue that its implementation would be more challenging due to the country's size, diverse population, and unique regional identities, as compared to smaller, more homogeneous countries. These critics maintain that the current patchwork of health care options is better suited to meet the needs and challenges across different regions of the U.S.
Furthermore, it is argued that universal health care in the U.S. would hinder medical innovation and entrepreneurship. By empowering health care entrepreneurs, it is believed that a more affordable, accessible, and productive health care system can be created. Government control is seen as a driver of problems in the current health care system, and only entrepreneurs can bring about true revolution in the field.
On the financial front, it is claimed that universal health care would raise costs for the federal government and, in turn, taxpayers. Estimates suggest that a Medicare-for-all plan, for example, would cost trillions of dollars over a ten-year period. It is argued that such significant increases to the federal budget would require new financing mechanisms, such as raising taxes, reducing spending, or issuing federal debt. Taxes on the middle class would likely have to be increased to cover the costs of eliminating premiums, expanding coverage, and ending all cost-sharing.
Finally, opponents of universal health care assert that it would increase wait times for basic care and potentially make Americans' health worse. It is suggested that increased demand for care, coupled with reduced payment rates for providers, would likely lead to longer wait times for appointments and elective surgeries, as well as greater wait times at doctors' offices and other medical facilities. Wait times in countries with universal coverage, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, are cited as examples. It is argued that Americans are accustomed to a system that offers quick access to care and has a "more is better" mentality, and extended waiting lines would not be acceptable.
pick up 1 sentences do you find most convincing and why?
"The Veterans' Affairs system, which serves former military members, is cited as an example of a single-payer health care provider that has repeatedly failed its patients, with instances of computer errors resulting in lost orders for specialty care."
This sentence is the most convincing to me because it provides a concrete example of the potential inefficiencies and failures that can occur in a government-run, single-payer health care system. The computer errors resulting in lost orders for specialty care highlight the potential consequences of relying on a centralized system for managing and delivering health care. It shows the importance of choice and competition in ensuring timely access to quality care.