The current debate about healthcare in America is whether the United States has a moral obligation to adopt a single-payer healthcare system, and I am pro for this new adaptation of healthcare for our country. Some people do not believe in this statement, but according to the National Health Insurance, “a national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone.” But what exactly is a single-payer healthcare system? The definition by TIME, states that it is a system in which all healthcare financing is provided by one entity, such as (but not always) the federal government. All residents receive core coverage regardless of income, occupation, or health status. Today, I will be presenting you with three contentions for this argument: 1) access to healthcare is a basic human right, 2) the lower costs that this system can provide, and 3) the benefits.
It is evident that
…show more content…
According to a 2013 study by Gerald Friedman, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, he discovered that under a single-payer system, in which all citizens are guaranteed a right to health care that the “total public and private health care spending could be lowered by $592 billion in 2014 and up to $1.8 trillion over the next decade due to lowered administrative and prescription drug costs.” This single-payer healthcare system would greatly benefit America and that money could be spent other realms such as education. This is an obligation of any decent society to provide health care to its residents. If every other country such as Canada can do it with better results than we get in terms of health, while spending less than as much per person on it, we should follow in their footsteps. If you look at other services that decent societies provide their people—police protection, clean water, education, roads—why is this not considered one of