Universal Healthcare in America Almost everything in life comes with a price. Whether that is an amount of money, or something less physical like time, we are constantly trying to determine if the price tag Is worth it. As far as universal Healthcare goes, it also has its price. It Is estimated that universal healthcare would cost the American government 1. 5 trillion dollars for the next ten years (Fox News). Which brings up the question, would it be worth It In America?
With forty-five million people and rising without health Insurance, and with universal healthcare being a key Issue In the upcoming residential election, this Is something that must be addressed as soon as possible (Mechanical). To answer this, one must determine If our medical system needs to be fixed, and whether or not universal healthcare could provide an affordable solution. Upon doing so, one will find that universal healthcare comes with a fair share of negatives; however, a universal healthcare reform would be an affordable improvement to America’s current system.
The question of whether or not universal health works has been answered ages ago. Universal healthcare is not a revolutionary idea by any means. Currently there are more than thirty countries that have a universal healthcare system in place. On a list ranking countries by quality of healthcare, the top countries all have a universal healthcare system intact (troubleshoot). Theses rankings were computed by comparing the average life expectancy, infant mortality rate, accessibly to medical care, and out-of-pocket costs for patients.
France was placed at the top of this list. “France’s system is noted for its short waiting periods, affordability, freedom of physician choice, doctors who still make house calls, exemplary genealogical care, laity healthcare for immigrants and the poor,” (Lopes 1167). On top of this, France spends about half of what America spends annually on medical care person (Mechanical). In 2011, America actually spent seventeen percent of its GAP on healthcare, which is more than any other developed nation Monsoons).
Another surprising thing to note is that the unstable nations of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the united Arab Emirates have a healthcare system ranked higher than the USA (troubleshoot). Taking these statistics Into account, the US is clearly lagging behind other countries with its poor system, which only furthers the need to look Into universal healthcare. If house X catches on fire and burns down the total price for rebuilding the house and replacing all of the items would be extremely price; probably more than the average American family has saved up.
This Is why females have Insurance. The basic business model for Insurance Includes a group of people paying Into a pool of money that they can only withdrawn from when they fall velvet to the risk that the pool of money was Intended to provide protection against. However, an enormous problem with America’s current health insurance system is that it is for profit (Ordain ND Sandier 12-113).
As reasonable as it is for a privately owned business to try to make money, it is as equally unreasonable for a health insurance agency to be for part of the healthcare pool of money is based upon the probability that they will need to withdraw from it, consumers with pre-existing conditions, such as asthma or autism, are left without affordable healthcare coverage (Miserly). Some insurance companies even refuse to offer coverage at all, or when then do, it is at a ridiculous price, leaving them to either pay an excessive amount of money for inferior insurance, or not even treat their condition.
In the past, this problem has even trapped people in Jobs, because switching would result in a new insurance provider that would most likely deny them coverage. In a universal healthcare system, everyone would be paying into the same pool of money, increasing the size of the pool would result in more affordable premiums. Therefore, those with pre-existing conditions would be able meet the expense of health insurance. Conversely, this does bring up the issue of giving Americans with perfect health the burden of paying for those with poor health.
This is unfortunately unavoidable with universal healthcare. However, it is important to remember that people have insurance Just in case something happens. Hence, if these Americans see their health take an unlucky turn, they will already have high quality healthcare. If universal healthcare was implemented, it appears that patients would have coverage from every doctor. If this was in fact the case, America would face significant problems down the road (Miserly). For starters, it’s pretty obvious that patients would want to see the best, and now newly affordable, doctors.
Since a top actor would charge more on average, the amount that our government has to pay would exponentially increase, thus creating possibility of significant bills being created that the government cannot afford to pay. Another issue that would come up is what type of medical proceedings would universal healthcare cover? Would it only cover procedures that are absolutely necessary, such as the removal of a tumor, or would coverage include procedures like Alaska eye surgery? What if the Alaska eye surgery is performed on someone that is nearly blind?
Suppose this person can get by with strong prescription glasses? Evidently Alaska eye surgery is an overall better alternative to wearing glasses, but, at the same time it is more expensive. Having universal healthcare would force the decision of what is covered and what is not covered. It is pretty clear that some procedures are only luxuries and should not be included in coverage, but who decides the grey areas? This is an issue that will have to be addressed in order for universal healthcare to be implemented.
Granted, when these details are worked out, the medical procedures that are covered will be more affordable than they previously were (Ordain and Sandier 113-114). Something that the American medical industry is missing is a centralized database, one that stores the medical information of all American citizens. Most doctors’ offices have their own private records, so patients are forced to fill out a long survey on their medical history every time they see a new doctor.
Without doctors knowing it, patients can inaccurately describe, lie about, or even forget their past medical history, thus making it harder for doctors to accurately diagnose patients. A centralized data base would eliminate this issue. It could also open up new avenues for medical researchers. Currently it’s difficult for researchers to analyze data on a large scale because they have to go through great lengths to gather medical access to this data, they can solely focus on analyzing it, potentially leading to more medical breakthroughs.
The only argument against a centralized data base is that it would give insurance providers more reasons to increase premiums and deny coverage. With universal healthcare, however, this would not be a problem because everyone automatically has the same insurance provider (Miserly). Universal healthcare can also help out American businesses. In comparison to foreign businesses in countries that have universal healthcare, American companies are at an automatic disadvantage. Take General Motors for example. GM insures 1. Million employees and former employees, which computes to a five billion dollar price tag. To fill the gap left from these costs General Motors has to make sacrifices in other areas Monsoons). This includes increasing the sticker price of all products, and the cutting down employees and their benefits. Universal Healthcare would eliminate a huge burden from GM by placing it on a level playing field, where GM could than sell heir products for less, which should result in increased sales (not to mention that current customers would be saving money).
Also, GM would have more financial room to hire new employees, and provide them with better benefits. This would extend to small and start-up businesses as well. Theoretically both aspects will put more money in American pockets. As any standard high school economics class teaches, more money causes more consumer confidence, and more consumer confidence causes an increase in consumer spending, which results in the stimulation of the economy. The main argument against universal healthcare is money. America’s already financially impaired government would receive a new burden of 1. Trillion dollars for only ten years of universal healthcare (Fox News). This cost would primarily come from providing insurance to the current forty-five million uninsured Americans. However in all fairness that number is inflated by illegal immigrants and those who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. So the number of people who actually cannot afford insurance is closer to fifteen million (Miserly). With the deduction of those that would not qualify for insurance, plus the addition of the none from the group of people who opted to not get insurance, the 1. Trillion dollar cost would be reduced. The cost would also go down through the increase of taxes. These new taxes would immediately bring in money. The new taxes would be on cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, and other items that are detrimental to health. In addition to making more money for America, the increase in taxes would discourage the purchase of these harmful items. Since they would be more expensive, and healthier people will be more likely to pick healthier options that should cause an increase in America’s overall heath, which in turn would decrease the need for medical care.
As a result, the 1. 5 million dollar price tag would decrease overtime Monsoons). Universal healthcare comes with some negatives; however, it would be an improvement to America’s currently broken system. The nation with the highest GAP in the world should not have an inferior healthcare system compared to an unstable Middle-Eastern nation. Universal healthcare would provide all Americans access to affordable healthcare. It can also give medical researchers the means to analyze deiced data at a national level.