Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care 1 Universal Health Care 3 Pros and Cons of Universal Healthcare Stephanie Hicks PH103: Informal Logic Instructor: Daniel Hayes January 24, 2017 Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care Premise 1 . Health care is a basic need for all humans. Premise 2 . Universal Healthcare is causes the risk of tax increases to all Americans. Premise 3 : No one in the richest nation on earth should go without health care.

Premise 4: Government provisions of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care. Purpose for Health Care Universal Health Care plays an important part in many of American society lives whether rich or poor because everyone should be entitled to the best health care possible. Universal Healthcare (which is also known as Universal Health Coverage) means that all are provided with health coverage no matter their gender, race, household income, age, or preexisting issues. Universal Healthcare has plenty of advantages and disadvantages. Health care cost can be decreased and controlled no matter what the illness is.

It can be longer wait times just to get services that you need, and increased taxes. The right to health care amounts to socialism and it should be an individual’s responsibility no the governments. Healthcare should be available to all people from the wealthy to the ones on welfare. It will give all citizens a chance for health care coverage that they deserve without the worry of financial hardship. It would also help improve the general health of the population, and lead to reduction in the amount of illness that occurs within all the public.

Disadvantages of Universal Health Care Universal Healthcare is not free as one may have put it. It is paid with tax payer’s money, or some small premiums paid out of pocket. Another issue with it is longer wait times for a doctor a right to health care could increase the US debt and deficit. Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, all government programs that provide a right to health care for certain segments of the population, totaled less than 10% of the federal budget in 1985, but by 2012 these programs took up 21% of the federal budget. Advantages of Universal Health Care The main advantage of this type of health care is it gives people that can’t afford health care the services they need.

This health care system allows basic health care services for all citizens and it doesn’t discriminate against anyone. It helps those that aren’t employed or have other difficulties get health care when they need it the most. ( Formosa Post ) This is perhaps the greatest advantage of universal health care, every member of the society that practice this type of health plan can be able to access health care no matter his social status. Since no single human life is greater to another, the poor can be able to receive exactly the type of health care that could only be afforded by rich man under normal circumstances. This type of health care does not discriminate against anyone. It puts all the legal member of the society in the equal pedestal. ( Formosa Post ) In Conclusion Healthcare is a basic need of every human being.

It should be considered as a basic human right in which the nation should ensure that every people are covered by equal healthcare regardless other the age, gender, and income. Industrialized countries all over the world have been employed the single payer health care which is better than private health insurance. Even though it is seen as an effective healthcare system; the question is why can’t American employ the single payer healthcare like industrialized countries?

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over universal health care remains one of the most contentious and significant policy issues in the United States. At its core, universal health care embodies the principle that access to necessary medical services is a fundamental human right, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, gender, or age. This paper aims to argue that implementing a comprehensive universal health care system in the US is both ethically justified and pragmatically necessary to promote societal well-being, economic productivity, and health equity.

The primary argument for universal health care posits that health care is a basic human right that should not be contingent upon an individual’s ability to pay (World Health Organization, 2010). This aligns with the ethical perspective of social justice, which advocates for equitable access to essential services for all citizens. The premises supporting this argument are: (1) health care is vital for individual well-being and societal functioning; (2) disparities in health outcomes are largely attributable to unequal access; (3) a healthy population enhances the overall productivity and economic stability of society; and (4) government intervention can mitigate disparities through policy reforms (Burau & van der Heijden, 2012).

Supporting evidence demonstrates that countries with universal health care systems, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, exhibit superior health outcomes relative to the US, including higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates (OECD, 2017). Moreover, these nations demonstrate more equitable health distributions, reducing disparities rooted in socioeconomic inequality. For instance, Canadian residents, regardless of income, enjoy comprehensive coverage with minimal out-of-pocket expenses, which correlates with increased preventive care and reduced emergency hospitalizations (Cohen & Neuman, 2016). This evidence underpins the premise that universal health care promotes health equity and overall efficiency.

A critical aspect of the argument involves countering objections. Opponents argue that universal health care leads to increased taxes, longer wait times, and decreased quality of care. They contend that government-provided health services could foster inefficiencies and potentially reduce incentives for innovation among providers. These objections warrant careful examination. Empirical data from national health systems indicate that while tax burdens may rise, the overall economic benefits, such as decreased emergency care costs and improved workforce productivity, offset these expenses (Boorse & Schlesinger, 2012). Additionally, waiting times in countries with universal care are often comparable or even shorter for preventive services, and innovations like electronic health records improve efficiency (Davis et al., 2014). Thus, the objections, while valid to some extent, do not outweigh the benefits of equitable access to health services.

The proposed policy shift to universal health care in the US aligns with principles of social justice and economic efficiency. This transition involves restructuring the current fragmented system into a single-payer model, funded publicly through progressive taxation. The benefits include reduced administrative costs, elimination of profit-driven motives, and broader access to primary and preventive care (Martin et al., 2015). Furthermore, evidence suggests that such reforms decrease health disparities and improve population health outcomes, ultimately fostering a more just and resilient society.

In conclusion, adopting universal health care in the United States represents not only a moral imperative rooted in human rights principles but also a strategic economic policy. By ensuring all Americans have access to quality health services, society benefits from improved health outcomes, reduced disparities, and increased economic productivity. While challenges such as funding and transition logistics are considerable, they are surmountable within a well-designed reform framework. A commitment to health equity underscores the importance of universal health care as a cornerstone of social justice and national well-being.

References

• Burau, V., & van der Heijden, I. (2012). The politics of health equity: An analysis of policy diffusion processes. Social Science & Medicine, 75(8), 1473-1480.
• Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2016). How Canada compares: Results from the Commonwealth Fund 2016 International Health Policy Survey. CIHI Reports.
• Davis, K., Stremikis, K., Squires, D., & Schoen, C. (2014). Mirror, mirror on the wall: How the performance of the U.S. health care system compares internationally. The Commonwealth Fund.
• Martin, L., Hartman, M., Washington, B., & Catlin, A. (2015). National health expenditure projections, 2015–25: Economy, prices, and aging expected to drive growth. Health Affairs, 34(3), 520-531.
• OECD. (2017). Health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
• World Health Organization. (2010). The World Health Report 2010: Health systems financing—the path to universal coverage. WHO.
• Smith, J. (2015). Health system performance and policy reform. Journal of Public Health Policy, 36(4), 425-440.
• Reid, R. J., et al. (2013). Primary care: A critical review of the evidence on quality and equity. The Milbank Quarterly, 91(3), 460-502.
• Cohen, J., & Neuman, T. (2016). Health equity and universal coverage: Canadian data. Journal of Health Economics, 45, 101-117.
• Boorse, K., & Schlesinger, M. (2012). Cost and quality considerations in health care reform. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 37(2), 277-305.