The United States already has universal health care for some. The government should expand the system to protect everyone.
A national health insurance is a universal health care that “uses public insurance to pay for private-practice care. Every citizen pays into the national insurance plan. Administrative costs are lower because there is one insurance company. The government also has a lot of leverage to force medical costs down,” according to economic expert Kimberly Amadeo. Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea all have national health insurance. In the United States, Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE function similarly. [178]
Medicare is the “federal health insurance program for: people who are 65 or older, certain younger people with disabilities, [and] people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).” Patients pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part B (general health coverage). The 2023 standard Part B monthly premium is $164.90. Patients also contribute to drug costs via Medicare Part D. Most people do not pay a premium for Medicare Part A (“inpatient hospital stays, care in a skilled nursing facility, hospice care, and some home health care”). More than 65.3 million people were enrolled in Medicare according to Feb. 2023 government data. [180] [181]
Medicaid “provides health coverage to millions of Americans, including eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities. Medicaid is administered by states, according to federal requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government.” More than 84.8 million people were enrolled in Medicaid as of Nov. 2022. [181] [182] [[182] [[[186]
If the government can successfully provide universal health care for 36% to almost 50% of the population, then the government can provide univeral health care for the rest of the population who are just as in need and deserving of leading healthy lives.
Pro 2
Universal health care would lower costs and prevent medical bankruptcy.
A June 2022 study found the United States could have saved $105.6 billion in COVID-19 (coronavirus) hospitalization costs with single-payer universal health care during the pandemic. That potential savings is on top of the estimated $438 billion the researchers estimated could be saved annually with universal health care in a non-pandemic year. [198]
“Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households,” conclude researchers from the Yale School of Public Health and colleagues. [201]
According to the National Bankruptcy Forum, medical debt is the number one reason people file for bankruptcy in the United States. In 2017, about 33% of all Americans with medical bills reported that they “were unable to pay for basic necessities like food, heat, or housing.” If all Americans were provided health care under a single-payer system medical bankruptcy would no longer exist, because the government, not private citizens, would pay all medical bills. [131]
Further, prescription drug costs would drop between 4% and 31%, according to five cost estimates gathered by New York Times reporters. 24% of people taking prescription drugs reported difficulty affording the drugs, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll. 58% of people whose drugs cost more than $100 a month, 49% of people in fair or poor health, 35% of those with annual incomes of less than $40,000, and 35% of those taking four or more drugs monthly all reported affordability issues. [197] [199] [200]
Additionally, 30% of people aged 50 to 64 reported cost issues because they generally take more drugs than younger people but are not old enough to qualify for Medicare drug benefits. With 79% of Americans saying prescription drug costs are “unreasonable,” and 70% reporting lowering prescription drug costs as their highest healthcare priority, lowering the cost of prescription drugs would lead to more drug-compliance and lives not only bettered, but saved as a result. [197] [199] [200]
Pro 3
Universal health care would improve individual and national health outcomes.
Since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the public health, economic and moral repercussions of widespread dependence on employer-sponsored insurance, the most common source of coverage for working-age Americans…. Business closures and restrictions led to unemployment for more than 9 million individuals following the emergence of COVID-19. Consequently, many Americans lost their healthcare precisely at a time when COVID-19 sharply heightened the need for medical services,” argue researchers from the Yale School of Public Health and colleagues. The researchers estimated more than 131,000 COVID-19 (coronavirus) deaths and almost 78,000 non-COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented with universal health care in 2020 alone. [198]
Another study finds a change to “single-payer health care would… save more than 68,000 lives and 1.73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.” [201]
Meanwhile, more people would be able to access much-needed health care. A Jan. 2021 study concludes that universal health care would increase outpatient visits by 7% to 10% and hospital visits by 0% to 3%, which are modest increases when compared to saved and lengthened lives. [202]
Other studies find that universal health coverage is linked to longer life expectancy, lower child mortality rates, higher smoking cessation rates, lower depression rates, and a higher general sense of well-being, with more people reporting being in “excellent health.” Further, universal health care leads to appropriate use of health care facilities, including lower rates of emergency room visits for non-emergencies and a higher use of preventative doctors’ visits to manage chronic conditions. [203] [204] [205]
An American Hospital Association report argues, the “high rate of uninsured [patients] puts stress on the broader health care system. People without insurance put off needed care and rely more heavily on hospital emergency departments, resulting in scarce resources being directed to treat conditions that often could have been prevented or managed in a lower-cost setting. Being uninsured also has serious financial implications for individuals, communities and the health care system.”
Universal health care has numerous benefits for both individuals and the nation as a whole. By expanding the system to protect everyone, the United States can lower costs, prevent medical bankruptcy, and improve health outcomes.
One of the main advantages of universal health care is lower costs. Studies have shown that a single-payer universal health care system could save billions of dollars in hospitalization costs, even during a pandemic. Additionally, it is estimated that universal health care could lead to annual savings of over $450 billion in national health-care expenditure. This would provide relief to lower-income households and reduce the burden on employers and households paying for health insurance premiums. Furthermore, prescription drug costs would decrease, making medications more affordable for those in need. This would prevent people from having to choose between basic necessities and their health.
Another significant benefit of universal health care is the prevention of medical bankruptcy. Currently, medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. By ensuring that everyone has access to health care under a single-payer system, individuals would no longer be burdened with medical bills they cannot afford. This would alleviate financial stress and provide peace of mind for millions of Americans.
Universal health care would also lead to improved health outcomes. Research has found that implementing universal health care could prevent thousands of deaths each year, both from COVID-19 and other illnesses. Additionally, access to health care would increase, allowing more people to receive the medical services they need. Universal health coverage has been linked to longer life expectancy, lower child mortality rates, higher smoking cessation rates, and lower rates of depression. Moreover, it encourages the appropriate use of health care facilities, reducing emergency room visits for non-emergencies and promoting preventative care for chronic conditions.
Expanding universal health care would also ease the strain on the broader health care system. Currently, the high rate of uninsured individuals puts stress on hospitals and emergency departments. Without access to primary care, uninsured individuals often delay necessary treatment, leading to more severe health issues and higher costs in the long run. By ensuring that everyone has health coverage, the demand for emergency services would decrease, allowing resources to be directed towards prevention and lower-cost care.
In conclusion, expanding universal health care to protect everyone in the United States would bring numerous benefits. It would lower costs, prevent medical bankruptcy, and improve health outcomes for individuals and the nation as a whole. By learning from the existing systems in countries like Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea, the United States can create a national health insurance program that provides quality care for all.
Identify 2 perspectives on your chosen issue. What are their main arguments for or against
Perspective 1: Against Universal Health Care
Argument 1: Government Inefficiency and Control
One perspective against universal health care argues that government involvement in healthcare would lead to inefficiencies and a loss of individual control. They contend that a single-payer system would result in longer wait times for treatment, limited choices in healthcare providers, and decreased quality of care. They believe that the free market and private insurance companies are better suited to provide efficient and tailored healthcare solutions. They argue that the government's involvement in healthcare would lead to increased bureaucracy and decreased patient autonomy.
Argument 2: Cost and Tax Burden
Another argument against universal health care is the concern about the cost and tax burden it would impose on taxpayers. Opponents argue that implementing a single-payer system would require significant increases in taxation to fund the program, leading to greater financial strain on individuals and the economy as a whole. They argue that individuals should have the freedom to choose their own healthcare coverage and be responsible for their own healthcare costs, rather than relying on the government or taxpayers to foot the bill.
Perspective 2: For Universal Health Care
Argument 1: Equal Access to Healthcare
One perspective in favor of universal health care emphasizes the importance of providing equal access to healthcare for all citizens. Proponents argue that healthcare is a basic human right and that no individual should be denied necessary medical treatment due to their financial or insurance status. They believe that a universal health care system would ensure that everyone has access to affordable and comprehensive healthcare, regardless of their socioeconomic background.
Argument 2: Cost Savings and Efficiency
Those in favor of universal health care argue that it would lead to cost savings and increased efficiency in healthcare delivery. They contend that a single-payer system eliminates the administrative complexities of multiple insurance providers and reduces administrative costs. By negotiating bulk pricing for medications and services, they argue that a unified system would lower healthcare costs overall. Proponents also argue that a universal health care system would focus on preventative care and early intervention, leading to better health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs in the long run.
Ultimately, the debate over universal health care centers around issues of government involvement, individual choice, financial burden, and equitable access to healthcare. It is important to note that these perspectives represent general arguments and that opinions on universal health care can vary significantly within each perspective.
about 5 sentences
Perspective 1: Against Universal Health Care
Argument 1: Government Inefficiency and Control
Opponents of universal health care argue that government intervention in healthcare would result in inefficiencies and a loss of individual control. They contend that a single-payer system would lead to longer wait times, limited choices in providers, and lower quality of care. They believe that a free market approach with private insurance companies would be more efficient and give individuals greater autonomy in their healthcare decisions.
Argument 2: Cost and Tax Burden
Another argument against universal health care is the concern about its cost and the tax burden it would place on taxpayers. Critics argue that implementing a single-payer system would require substantial increases in taxation, placing a heavy financial burden on individuals and the economy. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to choose their own healthcare coverage and be responsible for their own healthcare costs, rather than relying on government-funded healthcare.
Perspective 2: For Universal Health Care
Argument 1: Equal Access to Healthcare
Supporters of universal health care emphasize the importance of providing equal access to healthcare for all citizens. They argue that healthcare is a fundamental right and that no one should be denied necessary medical treatment due to their financial or insurance status. They believe that a universal health care system would ensure that everyone has access to affordable and comprehensive healthcare, promoting overall health and well-being.
Argument 2: Cost Savings and Efficiency
Proponents of universal health care contend that it would lead to cost savings and increased efficiency in healthcare delivery. They argue that a single-payer system eliminates the complexity of multiple insurance providers and lowers administrative costs. By negotiating bulk pricing for medications and services, they believe that a unified system would reduce overall healthcare costs. Supporters also argue that a focus on preventative care and early intervention would lead to better health outcomes and long-term cost savings.
These perspectives highlight the contrasting views on universal health care, with arguments ranging from concerns about government control and financial burden to the emphasis on equal access and potential cost savings. The ongoing debate revolves around finding the most effective and equitable way to provide healthcare to all citizens.
no about 3
Perspective 1: Against Universal Health Care
Argument: Government Inefficiency and Control
Opponents of universal health care argue that government involvement in healthcare would lead to inefficiencies and a loss of individual control. They believe that a single-payer system would result in longer wait times for treatment, limited choices in healthcare providers, and decreased quality of care. They argue that the free market and private insurance companies are better suited to provide efficient and tailored healthcare solutions.
Perspective 2: For Universal Health Care
Argument: Equal Access to Healthcare
Supporters of universal health care emphasize the importance of providing equal access to healthcare for all citizens. They argue that healthcare is a basic human right and that no individual should be denied necessary medical treatment due to their financial or insurance status. They believe that a universal health care system would ensure that everyone has access to affordable and comprehensive healthcare, regardless of their socioeconomic background.
Perspective 3: Cost Savings and Efficiency
Proponents of universal health care argue that it would lead to cost savings and increased efficiency in healthcare delivery. They contend that a single-payer system eliminates the administrative complexities of multiple insurance providers and reduces administrative costs. By negotiating bulk pricing for medications and services, they argue that a unified system would lower healthcare costs overall. They also believe that a focus on preventative care and early intervention would lead to better health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs in the long run.
These perspectives capture the main arguments for and against universal health care, focusing on concerns about government control and efficiency versus the principles of equal access and potential cost savings. The debate over universal health care revolves around finding a balance between individual choice, fairness, and effective healthcare delivery.
5 sentences
Perspective 1: Against Universal Health Care
Argument 1: Government Inefficiency and Control
Opponents argue that universal health care would lead to inefficiencies and a loss of individual control. They believe that government involvement in healthcare would result in longer wait times, limited choices in providers, and decreased quality of care. They claim that a free market approach with private insurance companies is more efficient and allows individuals to make their own healthcare decisions.
Argument 2: Cost and Tax Burden
Critics raise concerns about the cost and tax burden of universal health care. They argue that implementing a single-payer system would require significant increases in taxation, placing a heavy financial burden on individuals and the economy. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to choose their own healthcare coverage and be responsible for their own healthcare costs, rather than relying on government-funded healthcare.
Perspective 2: For Universal Health Care
Argument 1: Equal Access to Healthcare
Supporters stress the importance of providing equal access to healthcare for all citizens. They argue that healthcare is a fundamental right and that no one should be denied necessary medical treatment due to financial or insurance status. They contend that a universal health care system would ensure that everyone has access to affordable and comprehensive healthcare, promoting overall health and equality.
Argument 2: Cost Savings and Efficiency
Proponents argue that universal health care would lead to cost savings and increased efficiency in healthcare delivery. They assert that a single-payer system eliminates the complexity of multiple insurance providers and reduces administrative costs. By negotiating bulk pricing for medications and services, they believe that a unified system would result in lower overall healthcare costs. They also argue that a focus on preventative care and early intervention would lead to better health outcomes and long-term cost savings.
These perspectives highlight the contrasting views on universal health care, with arguments ranging from concerns about government control and financial burden to the emphasis on equal access and potential cost savings. The ongoing debate revolves around finding the most effective and equitable way to provide healthcare to all citizens while considering the potential trade-offs and impacts on individual freedom and economic factors.