Pros And Cons Of Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care In the past 100 years, the United States government has endured many difficulties dealing with the faults present in America's private healthcare system. Even though the federal and state governments have tried stepping in more recently and were able to lessen the negative impacts produced by the system, there are many more that still need to be addressed. As of 2014, 33 million people in the U.S. lack health insurance, resulting in more bankruptcies and deaths for those with and without insurance (Right to Health Care). By the U.S. government nationalizing health care, the result would be a healthier nation overall, with respect to life expectancy, the work force, and debt. Although not without flaw, universal health

First, it would fulfill what the Constitution has set out for the government to do. According to the Preamble of the Constitution, the government is supposed to promote the general welfare, and in the Declaration of Independence the people have unalienable rights, such as life (Right to Health Care). By having health care for all, the government would be fulfilling its purpose it was set out to do. Next, universal health care could potentially lower costs. According to Right to Health Care, it is estimated that the total amount of money spent on healthcare would be lowered by $592 billion, if made fully public. Often times, the government does not have to pay the administration costs that private insurance companies have to. Another benefit would be the amount of lives saved. In 2009 alone, there were over 40,000 deaths due to lack of health insurance (Right to Health Care). This means that there is an almost 50% risk of death for someone who is uninsured. Additionally, in other developed countries that have a right to health care, such as Israel, France, and Spain, they can have a 3 year longer life expectancy than the people in the U.S. These are not countries that one would typically consider as having better health systems than the U.S., but the truth is in the numbers. Lastly, universal health care would be good for the economy.

government would need to figure out a way to pay for it and implement a preventative system. First, as mentioned previously, one way to control the financial impact to the government is by redistributing costs within the hospital. For example, Tylenol in the ER does not need to cost as much as it does or using an x-ray machine that the hospital bought for a set price should not cost the patient thousands of dollars each time. By doing so, you can pay the staff what they deserve. Another way the government can combat cots is through higher taxes. In the Netherlands, their tax rate is 52%, but that includes free health care, childcare benefits, and social security (Shorto). In the U.S. on top of the taxes, constituents have to pay for health care, social security, real estate tax, childcare, which can easily add up to 52%. Essentially, many Americans are paying just as much as the Dutch do, but without half of the benefits. Next, for costs to decrease, the U.S. needs to create a system that places an emphasis on preventing certain illnesses before they happen. The cost to prevent is far less than the cost to treat. In the book, Public Policy, an emphasis is placed on preventing. For example, the U.S. spends twice as much per person when compared to any developed country, but has poorer results health wise (Kraft, 275). Essentially, by focusing on what could be prevented, U.S. spending