essay on why healthcare should be free

• Health Care

Why Health Care Should Be Free Essay?

• No comments
• 4 minute read

How Health Care Providers?

• Emma Mongeau

Share article

Introduction.

Imagine a world where you don’t have to worry about money when you or a family member gets sick. In this essay, I’ll be discussing why health care should be free for everyone. I’ll be talking about how current system is leaving many people behind, and how free health care can benefit us all in the long run.

The high cost of healthcare

We all know that healthcare is expensive. A recent study found that the average American family spends $10,000 on healthcare each year. That’s a lot of money! And it’s not just the cost of insurance premiums, but also the cost of co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs for things like prescription drugs.

So why is healthcare so expensive? There are a number of factors, including the rising cost of medical care, the increased use of technology in medicine, and the fact that we are living longer and thus using more healthcare services. But one of the biggest factors is the way our insurance system works.

Our current system is based on employer-sponsored health insurance. This means that most people get their health insurance through their job. But this also means that if you don’t have a job, or if your employer doesn’t offer health insurance, you’re out of luck. And even if you do have job-based health insurance, it may not be affordable.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was supposed to help with this problem by providing subsidies to help people buy health insurance on the individual market. But even with subsidies, many people still can’t afford health

Why health care should be free

There are many reasons why health care should be free for all citizens. One reason is that it is a fundamental human right. Everyone should have access to basic health care, without having to worry about whether they can afford it or not.

Another reason is that free health care would save money in the long run. Preventative care is much cheaper than treating serious conditions down the road. If more people had access to regular check-ups and screenings, we would catch illnesses early on, when they are easier and cheaper to treat.

Finally, free health care would improve the overall health of the population. This would lead to less sick days, higher productivity, and a healthier society overall.

There are many arguments for why health care should be free. At the end of the day, it boils down to the fact that it is a fundamental human right, and that it would save money and improve the health of our society as a whole.

Free healthcare around the world

There are many reasons why healthcare should be free for everyone around the world. One reason is that it would help to reduce the spread of disease. If everyone had access to free healthcare, then more people would be able to get vaccinated and stay healthy. This would eventually lead to a decrease in the overall number of sick people, which would save money for healthcare systems around the world.

Another reason why free healthcare is a good idea is because it would improve the quality of life for people who cannot afford to pay for health insurance. Currently, there are millions of people around the world who do not have health insurance and cannot afford to pay for medical care. This means that they often do not get the care they need and suffer from preventable illnesses. If healthcare was free, then everyone would have access to the care they need and could live healthier lives.

There are many other reasons why free healthcare is a good idea. It would reduce poverty, improve educational outcomes, and lead to a healthier workforce. All of these things would have a positive impact on economies around the world. Free healthcare is an idea that is worth fighting for and we should all do our part to make it a reality.

How to make healthcare free in the United States

There are many different ways to make healthcare free in the United States. One way is to have the government provide healthcare for all citizens. This can be done through various means such as single-payer healthcare, which is where the government pays for all healthcare costs, or by expanding Medicaid so that all citizens have access to affordable healthcare.

Another way to make healthcare free is to have private insurance companies provide free or low-cost healthcare to all citizens. This can be done by having the government subsidize private insurance companies, or by having the companies offer free or low-cost plans to all citizens.

Whatever method is used to make healthcare free, it is important to ensure that all citizens have access to quality healthcare. This can be done by ensuring that there are enough hospitals and clinics available, that there are enough doctors and nurses to care for patients, and that there are adequate resources available to treat all patients.

In conclusion, there are many reasons why health care should be free. Free health care would reduce the financial burden on patients, increase access to care, and improve the overall quality of healthcare. It is a moral imperative that we provide everyone with access to basic human rights like healthcare. Let’s work together to make free healthcare a reality.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You May Also Like

How Health Care Can Be Improved?

Why Treatment Of Water Is Essential?

Can Detox Cause Itchy Skin?

Why Health Care Should Be A Right?

Can Real Estate Agents Work From Home?

Who Trading Between 9 To 9.15?

When Trading In A Car?

Will Real Estate Market Crash In 2022?

• Read the Journal
• Submit an Article

Free Healthcare in the United States: A Possible Solution to Public Health Disparities

Nov 23, 2020 | Author Hala Atassi , Public Health Policy

Access to healthcare is one of the remarkable indicators that defines the quality of people’s lives. Despite the thousands of advanced technologies and countless healthcare clinics and hospitals, many people still cannot afford healthcare or health insurance. This has been a global concern for years, which many countries have resolved. However, the United States has yet to significantly progress towards making healthcare more accessible to low-income communities. There are many solutions to this problem that can be implemented today, upon which millions of suffering Americans depend.

Some studies have shown over the years that expensive health care is due to the high cost of defensive medicine, or in other words, physicians ordering expensive tests that may be unnecessary, as a way to deflect legal responsibility from themselves. Deviating from defensive medicine in the healthcare industry might impact physicians economically, but more importantly, it will help achieve affordable healthcare. 

Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act of 2010) is one program that focuses on extending healthcare to Americans and reducing public health disparities. This program lays down a foundation that people under the age of 26 will receive accessible care from their parent or guardian’s health care plans. Afterward, they must pay for their health care plan. Also, the program stipulates that the government provides free healthcare to retired adults from age 55 to 64, to avoid any insurance plan complications. Essentially, Obamacare seeks to expand access to healthcare care, regardless of the scale of one’s medical diagnosis, to ultimately save lives that would have been lost due to the inability to pay expensive medical bills.

Easier access to healthcare will result in a healthier nation. The healthcare system is one of the most important components in life, as the United States’ economy cannot be fully efficient and benefit all people until everyone can access quality, affordable healthcare. Free healthcare (or at least cheaper healthcare) would be the most effective system for America, which other countries like Switzerland and Singapore have demonstrated. The money spent by citizens on their healthcare could be redirected to other social support systems in America, like expanding access to nutritious foods as well. Although free healthcare has many perks, it also has disadvantages. Most notably, overloading health services with a large number of patients would overwhelm already busy healthcare systems. Patients may overuse the perk of free healthcare, leaving not taxpayers to suffer, but rather medical professionals and healthcare systems. Even so, the perceptible advantages of affordable healthcare outweigh the disadvantages. As it is, years of attempts to ameliorate the United States healthcare system have failed the American people, and the situation remains devastating and life-threatening for low-income communities. There should be no debate though as to whether America needs to redesign the public health system, as healthcare is a human right, and nobody should be dying because they cannot afford to live, especially when the government has the economic means to take care of them.

Bibliography:

Gerisch, Mary. “Health Care As a Human Right.” American Bar Association , www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/health-care-as-a-human-right/. 

“Free Health Care Policies.” World Health Organization , World Health Organization, 2020, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/free-health-care-policies. 

Gologorsky, Beverly. “Health Care in the US Should Be Affordable and Accessible.” The Nation , 9 May 2019, www.thenation.com/article/archive/tom-dispatch-health-care-should-be-affordable-and-accessible/. 

Luhby, Tami. “Here’s How Obamacare Has Changed America.” CNN , Cable News Network, 8 July 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/politics/obamacare-how-it-has-changed-america/index.html.

Recent Posts

• Zero-Covid: A Crisis in Shanghai
• Treatments for Fetal Rh Anemia
• Health Inequity and Racial Disparities in Covid-19, Gun Violence, and HIV/AIDS Cases
• Abortion Rights Are up in the Air Again: It’s All on the Line in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
• The History of Racial Disparities and Discrimination in the U.S. Healthcare System

Exploring what works, what doesn’t, and why.

Healthcare is a human right – but not in the United States

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on WhatsApp
• Share through Email

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson in June is just the latest blow to health rights in the United States. National medical associations in the U.S. agree that abortion is essential to reproductive healthcare. So why would abortion not be protected as such? Because the U.S. does not, and never has, protected a right to health.  

Good health is the foundation of a person’s life and liberty. Injury and disease are always disruptive, and sometimes crippling. We might have to stop working, cancel plans, quarantine, hire help, and in cases of long-term disability, build whole new support systems to accommodate a new normal.

The U.S. remains the only high-income nation in the world without universal access to healthcare. However, the U.S. has signed and ratified one of the most widely adopted international treaties that includes the duty to protect the right to life. Under international law, the right to life simply means that humans have a right to live, and that nobody can try to kill another. Healthcare, the United Nations says, is an essential part of that duty. In 2018, the U.N. Committee on Civil and Political Rights said the right to life cannot exist without equal access to affordable healthcare services (including in prisons), mental health services, and notably, access to abortion. The U.N. committee mentioned health more than a dozen times in its statement on the right to life.

Sign up for Harvard Public Health

Delivered to your inbox weekly.

• Email address By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to receive email communications from Harvard Public Health.
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The bottom line is: the U.S. can’t claim to protect life if it fails to protect health. And it has consistently failed on all three of the U.N.’s measures— the latest being access to abortion.

In the U.S., our debates around healthcare, and especially abortion, are hampered by a lack of right to health. Instead, the Supreme Court in 1973 protected access to abortion through the rights to privacy and due process, not health. Privacy is mentioned only twice by the U.N. committee commentary on the right to life.

Since Dobbs, several state legislatures have declared it fair game to criminalize abortion procedures even in cases where pregnancy threatens maternal health or life. Despite ample evidence that restrictive abortion laws lead to spikes in maternal mortality and morbidity—core public health indicators—the Court prior to the Dobb’s decision has defended abortion as merely a matter of privacy, not health or life. We know this is a myth. Abortion is deeply tied to the ability to stay healthy and in some cases, alive.

Regardless, our political parties remain deeply polarized on access to healthcare, including abortion. But lawmakers should know there is historical backing in the U.S. for elevating a right to health. None other than U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, first proposed healthcare as a human right in his State of the Union address in 1944, as part of his ‘Second Bill of Rights.’ His list featured aspirational economic and social guarantees to the American people, like the right to a decent home and, of course, the right to adequate medical care.

Eleanor Roosevelt later took the Second Bill of Rights to the U.N., where it contributed to the right to health being included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The right to health is now accepted international law, and is part of numerous treaties, none of which the U.S. Senate has seen fit to ratify. The U.S. conservative movement has historically declared itself averse to adopting rights that might expand government function and responsibility. In contrast, state legislatures in red states are keen to expand government responsibility when it comes to abortion. The conservative movement condemns government interference in the delivery of healthcare—except when it comes to reproductive health. The American Medical Association has called abortion bans a “direct attack” on medicine, and a “brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”

Excepting access to abortion, U.S. lawmakers have largely left healthcare to the markets, rather than government. True, the government funds programs like Medicaid and Medicare but these programs vary significantly in quality and access by state, falling far short of providing fair, equitable, universal access to good healthcare.

The only two places where the U.S. government accepts some responsibility for the provision of healthcare are 1) in prisons and mental health facilities; and 2) in the military. While healthcare services in the U.S. prison system are notoriously deficient, they nevertheless exist and are recognized as an entitlement, underpinning the right to life. As an example, in 2005 a federal court seized control of the failing healthcare system in California’s Department of Corrections citing preventable deaths. In the military, free healthcare is an entitlement, and the quality of that care is deemed good enough even for the U.S. president.

So why doesn’t everyone in the U.S. have the same rights?

It is an uphill battle in a country that sees health and healthcare as a private matter for markets and individuals to navigate. But if we want to improve public health in the U.S. we need to start legislating healthcare as a right—and recognize that achieving the highest possible standards of public health is a legitimate government function.

photo: Tony Gutierrez / AP Photo

More in Equity

When death doesn’t count

Periods and patriarchy

For Black Americans, homeownership can mean better health

Argumentative Essay on Why Healthcare Should Be Free

Back in February of 2018, a woman named Marlena Wilzbach was driving her kids home from school, when a truck driver ran a red light and hit them head on. Unfortunately, Marlena took most of the impact which caused her severe spinal injury and would need invasive back surgery if she wanted a chance at gaining normal mobility again. There was only one problem though, and that was the price tag attached to this surgery which came to a grand total of $300,000. Due to her husband being self-employed, they had no health insurance and would therefore need to sell their house they created all their memories in if they wanted a chance at paying off this massive amount of debt. In other industrialized economies, you rarely see this happening if at all, which is why healthcare should be free because no one should have to go bankrupt from an injury or illness, and people would address their health issues much earlier on. 

Marlena’s situation is but one of many cases that happen in the US regarding the healthcare system. Back in 2019, a woman of West Palm Beach Florida who was diagnosed with cancer, had no other choice but to file for bankruptcy after her medical expenses overwhelmed her despite having health insurance. She stated that her insurance only covered the bed because the hospital was out of network and everything else such as the actual treatment, she was sadly charged for. No one can predict when they’ll fall victim to an illness such as the likes of cancer and or be subjected to serious injuries which is why when these things do happen, no one should have to think to themselves, “Can I afford this?”. This single question is why many people just choose to walk off their injury or wait until the disease is “bad enough” to the point they have no other choice but to go seek treatment which brings up another reason why healthcare should be free. 

The final reason why healthcare should be free is because people would take care of their health issues when they’re minor. A December 2019 poll, shows that a quarter of the American population have either delayed, or know someone who has delayed medical treatment for an illness due to how much it would cost them. One example of this statistic is a woman named Susan Finley who called in sick because she had to recover from pneumonia and accidentally took off a day extra than what was permitted by Walmart’s attendance policy. Due to this “violation”, she was laid off and stripped of her health insurance which caused her to hold off on seeing a doctor, fearing that it would cost too much and as a result, passed away 3 months later. More than 26,000 Americans die from lack of health insurance because they don’t want their family or theirselves to deal with the burden of piled up medical bills which causes them to die from preventable diseases such as pneumonia. 

Some may say free healthcare would be a bad thing because no one should have to pay for someone else’s healthcare, but looking at it from a different perspective, shows that this would be the better option. Not only is it cheaper, but it also benefits you and your family because they wouldn’t have to hold off on a preventable disease or worry about how much their back surgery would cost during the aftermath of a car crash. In addition, it’s not just you contributing to the system, but everyone else is doing the same thing which is paying for your healthcare as well in a sense which prevents you from being the person worrying about the cost for a doctor's visit. There will be people out there that do ruin their health on purpose by either smoking or drinking, but why should people who randomly end up with a serious disease be stripped of their basic human right because a chronic smoker would “abuse” the system? 

In conclusion, healthcare should be free because no one should have to worry about the cost of an injury or illness and less people would die from preventable diseases. The current healthcare system that’s put into place, is purely a for-profit system that only benefits those lucky enough to have good insurance or the ultra rich of this country. Free healthcare may not be perfect like some think it is, but it would significantly be a better option than what’s in place now. It’s time we stop insurance companies from putting a price tag on a basic human right and go out and vote for the people who also agree that healthcare should be accessible to everyone regardless of race, gender, and income.

Related Samples

• Teenage Love Essay Example
• Reflective Essay Sample on Leadership and Service
• Essay About My Career Job Of Theoretical Astronomer
• Research Paper about Work Ethic
• The Importance Of Deaf Culture Essay Example
• Essay On Problem Of Mobile Phone
• Research Paper about Teachers' Salary
• Essay Sample: Do Students Deserve Mental Health Breaks?
• Narrative Essay Sample: My Goal in Education
• Is the COVID-19 vaccination worth the risks that are involved?

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Why Healthcare Should Be Free? Research Paper

Introduction, works cited.

• Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience that health care should be free for everyone.
• Thesis Statement: Given the current state of health care, the US should adopt a system that covers all citizens.
• Organizational Pattern: Monroe’s Motivated Sequence.
• Has anyone here ever been uncovered by health insurance when seeking a new workplace or working part-time?
• In a time when it feels something has gone wrong, what we rely on is health care that is affordable – why not make it free?
• Think about how much risk you take with no health insurance, especially when an average visit to a doctor costs you more than $60 (Fay par. 8).
• Today, I would like to speak about the reasons a free health care system is the solution to the situation we are witnessing.

The current health care issues in the US are drastic and affect us all

• In 2007, the percentage of bankrupt persons due to uncovered medical bills was 62% (Tamkins par. 2).
• Many of them were insured but lost their money due to coverage gaps.
• Health insurance can take, e.g., $150 a month.
• One of the reasons for it is that top health insurance CEOs’ salaries sum up to tens of millions (Eastwood par. 1).
• Other reasons are excess lab testing and malpractice (Wagner par. 17).
• The ACA was aimed at reducing the percentage of uninsured (“Key Facts About the Uninsured Population” par. 1).
• Still, many people remain uninsured because they still cannot afford it.

Transition: Surely our health care system needs improvement, but there is a tangible solution to it.

Let us see how we can benefit from a free health care system

• The system would not be entirely free, but the costs would be reduced (Nicholson par. 2-6).
• It would also concern tests and prescription drugs.
• Every citizen would be covered by health care.
• Health care would be provided when you seek a new job or do not suffer chronically.

Transition: The benefits of free health care being observed, let us see how free health care has been applied to practice.

Massachusetts health program provides health care to nearly all citizens

• Free insurance was given to those beyond the poverty level (Pallarito par. 1-4).
• Young adults seeking a job were insured.
• Death rates were declined by 4.5%.

Transition: A free health care system can literally save lives.

• Today, I have discussed why the US needs free health care, the benefits of it and how it was implemented by Massachusetts.
• The unaffordability and uninsuredness make your fellow citizens suffer.
• You will probably live longer if you are a Massachusetts resident – but the reform should cover the entire country.
• Honest health care that is affordable for everyone is the step that will unite us on the way to our dream.

Eastwood, Brian. Top health insurance CEO pay exceeds $10 million in 2014 . 2015. Web.

Fay, Bill. Doctor Visit Costs . n.d. Web.

“ Key Facts about the Uninsured Population. ” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . Kaiser Family Foundation. 2015. Web.

Nicholson, David. “ The world needs free healthcare for all, says the ex-NHS boss. ” The Guardian . Guardian News and Media Limited. 2014. Web.

Pallarito, Karen. “ Massachusetts health care reform law lowered death rates, study finds. ” CBSNews . CBS Interactive Inc. 2014. Web.

Tamkins, Theresa. Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies . 2009. Web.

Wagner, Neil. Health Insurance: Millions Spent on Salaries, Not Care . 2010. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 17). Why Healthcare Should Be Free? https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-healthcare-should-be-free/

"Why Healthcare Should Be Free?" IvyPanda , 17 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/why-healthcare-should-be-free/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Why Healthcare Should Be Free'. 17 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Why Healthcare Should Be Free?" January 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-healthcare-should-be-free/.

1. IvyPanda . "Why Healthcare Should Be Free?" January 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-healthcare-should-be-free/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Why Healthcare Should Be Free?" January 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-healthcare-should-be-free/.

• Diabetes Issues: Insulin Price and Unaffordability
• Holistic Care for the Chronically Ill Patients
• The Role of Language in Cultural Studies
• Families With a Chronically Ill Child: Issues and Techniques
• Weight Control for Chronically Mentally Ill People
• Chronically Ill Older Adults' Care and Management
• The Intentions and the Causes of the Monroe Doctrine
• Muse's of Marylyn Monroe
• The Probable Cause of Marilyn Monroe’s Death
• Reformed Epistemology Analysis
• Arlington Community and Healthy Living Conditions
• Australian Health Promotion Program' Evaluation
• Supporting the Health Needs of Patients With Parkinson’s, Preeclampsia, and Postpartum Depression
• Public Health Systems: England and Egypt
• Pender's Health Promotion Model Application

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Knowledge at Wharton Podcast

Does the u.s. need universal health care, december 8, 2020 • 11 min listen.

Wharton's Robert Hughes explains the moral and social benefits of universal health care and how such a system might look in the U.S.

• Public Policy

Wharton’s Robert Hughes speaks with Wharton Business Daily on SiriusXM about the need for universal health care in the U.S.

Nothing quite exposes the inequalities that exist in American society more than the health care system. It’s a complex combination of private insurance, public programs and politics that drives up costs, creating significant barriers to lifesaving medical treatment for large segments of the population. In America, access to quality health care often depends on income, employment and status.

Why Should Healthcare Be Free?

Robert Hughes, professor of business ethics and legal studies at Wharton, is an advocate for universal health care coverage. Drawing deeply on his research in philosophy, Hughes believes that equal access to medical care is beneficial for both liberty and social stability. Health, he says, should not be tied to wealth.

“I think it’s very disturbing that people have to go to GoFundMe in order to get their medical treatments paid for. It creates a power imbalance,” he said, referring to the crowdsourcing platform used to help raise money for patient bills. “That’s why I say that truly universal health care would be good for people’s liberty. Because you’re not really free if you’re depending on charity, especially discretionary charity like the kind you see on GoFundMe, for a basic need like health care.”

Hughes recently joined the Wharton Business Daily radio show on SiriusXM to discuss universal health care in the context of the presidential election. (Listen to the podcast at the top of this page.) President-elect Joe Biden has said he will protect and rebuild the Affordable Care Act , which has been under attack since it was enacted in 2010 under President Barack Obama.

Does the U.S. Hhave Universal Healthcare Now That Obamacare Exists?

The ACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare, brought the U.S. closer to providing universal health care through subsidized private health insurance, but Hughes said there’s still a wide gap. He believes policymakers should ensure that everyone has coverage and access to the same needed treatments.

“It’s very disturbing that people have to go to GoFundMe in order to get their medical treatments paid for. It creates a power imbalance.”

“I think it’s totally feasible for us to change the health care system, if we all were willing to do the right thing. But we’re not all willing to do the right thing,” Hughes said.

The professor argued the case for universal health care in a paper titled “ Egalitarian Provision of Necessary Medical Treatment ,” which was published last year in the Journal of Ethics. (The author-accepted version is  here .) He examined the health care systems of the U.K., Australia and Canada, concluding that Canada’s single-payer system is the most advantageous for the U.S.

Private insurance would still exist under such a setup, but it could not be used to pay for treatments already covered under universal health care. This provision would eliminate wealth as the controlling factor in health.

Why Doesn’t the U.S. Have Free Healthcare?

“I don’t understand why there’s so much resistance to the idea of truly universal health insurance in the United States, given that this is something that other industrial countries just do,” Hughes said.

He acknowledged that the U.S. doesn’t have the “political will” to change a system that’s been entrenched since the end of World War II, when employers began offering health insurance to their workers instead of higher wages.

“We can’t wave a magic wand and go back to 1946,” he said. “I don’t see the United States completely uprooting all these insurances. And that means we might need to create a model that keeps a lot of what we have, making it more accessible to more people, rather than creating all new institutions from scratch.”

Knowledge at Wharton interviewed Hughes in 2019 about his paper. For an in-depth look into his research and advocacy, read the interview here .

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Cass Sunstein on Nudging, Sludge, and the Power of ‘Dishabituation’

Basel III Endgame Political Lobbying Efforts in U.S. Have Been Remarkable Says Wharton Professor

Why Breakups Aren’t the Best Way to Curb Tech Monopolies

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Point Turning Point: the Case for Universal Health Care

An argument that the COVID-19 pandemic might be the turning point for universal health care.

Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care

As we all grapple with our new reality, it's difficult to think of anything beyond the basics. How do we keep our families safe? Are we washing our hands enough ? Do we really have to sanitize the doorknobs and surfaces every day? How do we get our cats to stop videobombing our Zoom meetings? Do we have enough toilet paper?

Win McNamee | Getty Images

The more we read the headlines, the more we feel the need to do something, or at least say something. Change is happening – ready or not. Maybe talking about some of these important issues can lead to action that will help us steer out of this skid.

Historically, Americans have found ways to meet their circumstances with intention, moving in mass to make heretofore unimaginable change that has sustained and improved our lives to this day. The Great Depression lead to the creation of the New Deal and Social Security. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire brought about change in labor conditions. The Cuyahoga River fire lead to the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Could the COVID-19 pandemic be the turning point for universal health care? We can't think of a more propitious time. In the first two weeks of April, 5.2 million Americans filed for unemployment. Economists believe that 30% unemployment is possible by fall. For most Americans, our health care is tied to our employment, and because of this, millions of Americans are losing their health care just when they may need it the most. Economists predict that health insurance premiums will likely increase by 40% in the next year due to less payers and more who are in need of care and the eventual collapse of private health care insurance .

Our current circumstances have illustrated the need for universal health care in a way that is obvious and undeniable. Below we have listed the most frequent arguments in opposition followed by an evidence-based rebuttal.

1. Point: "Governments are wasteful and shouldn't be in charge of health care."

Counterpoint: In 2017, the U.S. spent twice as much on health care (17.1% of GDP) as comparable Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries (OECD) (8.8% of GDP), all of whom have universal health care. The country with the second highest expenditure after the U.S. is Switzerland at 12.3%, nearly 5% less. Of all these countries, the U.S. has the highest portion of private insurance. In terms of dollars spent, the average per capita health care spending of OECD countries is $3,558, while in the U.S. it's $10,207 – nearly three times as costly.

Bottom line: Among industrialized countries with comparable levels of economic development, government-provided health care is much more efficient and more economical than the U.S. system of private insurance.

2. Point: "U.S. health care is superior to the care offered by countries with universal health care."

Counterpoint: According to the Commonwealth Health Fund , in the U.S., infant mortality is higher and the life span is shorter than among all comparable economies that provide universal health care. Maternal mortality in the U.S. is 30 per 100,000 births and 6.4 per 100,000 births on average in comparable countries, which is nearly five times worse.

In addition, the U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) and an obesity rate that is two times higher than the OECD average. In part due to these neglected conditions, in comparison to comparable countries, the U.S. (as of 2016) had among the highest number of hospitalizations from preventable causes and the highest rate of avoidable deaths.

The Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker , which is a collaborative effort to monitor the quality and cost of U.S. health care, shows that among comparable countries with universal health care, mortality rate is lower across the board on everything from heart attacks to child birth. The U.S. also has higher rates of medical, medication and lab errors relative to similar countries with universal health care.

Bottom line: With our largely privately funded health care system, we are paying more than twice as much as other countries for worse outcomes.

3. Point: "Universal health care would be more expensive."

Counterpoint: The main reason U.S. health care costs are so high is because we don't have universal health care. Unlike other first world countries, the health care system in the U.S. is, to a great extent, run through a group of businesses. Pharmaceutical companies are businesses. Insurance companies are businesses. Hospital conglomerates are businesses. Even doctors' offices are businesses.

Businesses are driven to streamline and to cut costs because their primary goal is to make a profit. If they don't do this, they can't stay in business. It could mean that in the process of "streamlining," they would be tempted to cut costs by cutting care. Under the current system, a share of our health care dollars goes to dividends rather than to pay for care, hospitals are considered a "financial asset" rather than a public service entity and a large portion of their budgets are dedicated to marketing rather than patient care.

Given all these business expenses, it shouldn't be surprising that the business-oriented privately funded health care system we have is more expensive and less effective than a government provided universal system. In addition, for the health care system as a whole, universal health care would mean a massive paperwork reduction. A universal system would eliminate the need to deal with all the different insurance forms and the negotiations over provider limitations. As a result, this would eliminate a large expense for both doctors and hospitals.

The economist Robert Kuttner critiques the system this way: "For-profit chains … claim to increase efficiencies by centralizing administration, cutting waste, buying supplies in bulk at discounted rates, negotiating discounted fees with medical professionals, shifting to less wasteful forms of care and consolidating duplicative facilities." As he points out, "using that logic, the most efficient 'chain' of all is a universal national system."

Evidence to support these points can be found in a recent Yale University study that showed that single-payer Medicare For All would result in a 13% savings in national health-care expenditures. This would save the country $450 billion annually.

Bottom line: Universal health care would be less expensive overall, and an added benefit would be that health care decisions would be put in the hands of doctors rather than insurance companies, which have allegiances to shareholders instead of patient care.

4. Point: "I have to take care of my own family. I can't afford to worry about other people."

Counterpoint: It is in all of our best interests to take care of everyone. Aside from the fact that it is the compassionate and moral thing to do, viruses do not discriminate. When people don't have insurance, they won't go to the doctor unless they're gravely ill. Then, they're more likely to spread illness to you and your family members while they delay getting the care they need.

In addition, when people wait for care or don't get the prophylactic care then need, they end up in the emergency room worse off with more costly complications and requiring more resources than if they had been treated earlier. Taxpayers currently cover this cost. This affects everyone, insured or not. Why not prevent the delay upfront and make it easy for the patient to get treatment early and, as an added bonus, cost everyone less money?

In addition, the health of the economy impacts everyone. Healthy workers are essential to healthy businesses and thus a healthy economy. According to the Harvard School of Public Health , people who are able to maintain their health are more likely to spend their money on goods and services that drive the economy.

Bottom line: The health of others is relevant to the health of our families either through containment of infectious diseases such as COVID-19 or through the stability of the economy. Capitalism works best with a healthy workforce.

5. Point: "Entrepreneurship and innovation is what makes the U.S. a world leader."

Counterpoint: Imagine how many people in the U.S. could start their own businesses or bring their ideas to market if they didn't have to worry about maintaining health care for their families. So many people stay tethered to jobs they hate just so their family has health care. With workers not needing to stay in jobs they don't like in order to secure health insurance, universal healthcare would enable people to acquire jobs where they would be happier and more productive. Workers who wanted to start their own business could more easily do so, allowing them to enter the most creative and innovative part of our economy – small businesses.

In his book, "Everything for Sale," economist Robert Kuttner asserts that it's important to understand that businesses outside of the U.S. don't have to provide health care for their employees, which makes them more competitive. From a business point of view, American companies, released from the burden of paying employee insurance, would be more competitive internationally. They would also be more profitable as they wouldn't have to do all the paperwork and the negotiating involved with being the intermediary between employees and insurance companies.

Bottom line: Unburdening businesses from the responsibility of providing health insurance for their employees would increase competitiveness as well as encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and allow small businesses room to thrive.

6. Point: "The wait times are too long in countries with universal health care."

Counterpoint: The wait times on average are no longer in countries with universal healthcare than they are in the U.S., according to the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker . In some cases, the wait times are longer in the U.S., with insurance companies using valuable time with their requirements to obtain referrals and approvals for sometimes urgently needed treatments. On average, residents of Germany, France, UK, Australia, and the Netherlands reported shorter wait times relative to the U.S.

Bottom line: Wait times are longer in the U.S. when compared with many countries with a universal health care system.

7. Point: "My insurance is working just fine, so why change anything?"

Counterpoint: A comprehensive study conducted in 2018 found that 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and, of those, 75% were insured at the time. Most people who have insurance are insufficiently covered and are one accident, cancer diagnosis or heart attack away from going bankrupt and losing everything. The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world whose citizens go bankrupt due to medical bills. And, if you survive a serious illness and don't go bankrupt, you may end up buried in bills and paperwork from your insurance company and medical providers. All of this takes time and energy that would be better spent healing or caring for our loved ones. Besides, we don't need to abolish private health insurance. Some countries like Germany have a two-tiered system that provides basic non-profit care for all but also allows citizens to purchase premium plans through private companies.

Bottom line: Private insurance does not protect against medical bankruptcy, but universal health care does. The residents of countries with universal health care do not go bankrupt due to medical bills.

8. Point: "I don't worry about losing my insurance because if I lose my job, I can just get another one."

Counterpoint: We can't predict what will happen with the economy and whether another job will be available to us. This pandemic has proven that it can all go bad overnight. In addition, if you lose your job, there is less and less guarantee that you will find a new job that provides insurance . Providing insurance, because it is so expensive, has become an increasingly difficult thing for companies to do. Even if you're able to find a company that provides health care when you change jobs, you would be relying on your employer to choose your health plan. This means that the employee assumes that the company has his or her best interests in mind when making that choice, rather than prioritizing the bottom line for the benefit of the business. Even if they're not trying to maximize their profit, many companies have been forced to reduce the quality of the insurance they provide to their workers, simply out of the need to be more competitive or maintain solvency.

Bottom line: There are too many factors beyond our control (e.g., pandemic, disability, economic recession) to ensure anyone's employment and, thus, health care. Universal health care would guarantee basic care. Nobody would have to go without care due to a job loss, there would be greater control over costs and businesses would not have to fold due to the exorbitant and rising cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

9. Point: "Pharmaceutical companies need to charge so much because of research and development."

Counterpoint: It's usually not the pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs. They develop similar drugs that are variations on existing drugs, altered slightly so that they can claim a new patent. Or they buy out smaller companies that developed new drugs, thus minimizing their own R&D costs. Most commonly, they manufacture drugs developed under funding from the National Institutes of Health, and thus, the tax payers are the greatest funder of drug development via NIH grants provided to university labs.

Oddly, this investment in R&D does not appear to extend any discount to the tax payers themselves. In "The Deadly Costs of Insulin, " the author writes that insulin was developed in a university lab in 1936. In 1996, the cost of a vial of insulin was $21. Today, the cost of a vial of insulin could be as much as $500, causing some without insurance to risk their lives by rationing or going without. The cost of manufacturing the drug has not gone up during that time. So, what accounts for the huge increase in price? In " The Truth About Drug Companies ," the author demonstrates that drug companies use the bulk of their profits for advertising, not R&D or manufacturing. A universal health care system would not only not need to advertise, but would also be more effective at negotiating fair drug prices. Essentially, the government as a very large entity could negotiate price much more effectively as one large system with the government as the largest purchaser.

Bottom line: Taxpayers contribute most of the money that goes into drug development. Shouldn't they also reap some of the benefits of their contribution to R&D? Americans should not have to decide between their heart medication and putting food on the table when their tax dollars have paid for the development of many of these medications.

10. Point: "I don't want my taxes to go up."

Counterpoint: Health care costs and deductibles will go down to zero and more than compensate for any increase in taxes, and overall health care needs will be paid for, not just catastrophic health events. According to the New York Times , “…when an American family earns around $43,000, half of the average compensation when including cash wages plus employer payroll tax and premium contributions, 37% of that ends up going to taxes and health care premiums. In high-tax Finland, the same type of family pays 23% of their compensation in labor taxes, which includes taxes they pay to support universal health care. In France, it’s 2%. In the United Kingdom and Canada, it is less than 0% after government benefits.”

Bottom line: With a universal health care system, health care costs and deductibles will be eliminated and compensate for any increase in taxes.

11. Point: "I don't want to have to pay for health care for people making bad choices or to cover their pre-existing conditions."

Counterpoint: Many of the health problems on the pre-existing conditions list are common, genetically influenced and often unavoidable. One estimate indicates that up to 50% – half! – of all (non-elderly) adults have a pre-existing condition. Conditions on the list include anxiety, arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, heart defect, menstrual irregularities, stroke and even pregnancy. With universal health care, no one would be denied coverage.

It's easy to assume that your health is under your control, until you get into an accident, are diagnosed with cancer or have a child born prematurely. All of a sudden, your own or your child's life may rely on health care that costs thousands or even millions of dollars. The health insurance that you once thought of as "good enough" may no longer suffice, bankruptcy may become unavoidable and you (or your child) will forever have a pre-existing condition. Some people may seem careless with their health, but who's to judge what an avoidable health problem is, vs. one that was beyond their control?

For the sake of argument, let's say that there are some folks in the mix who are engaging in poor health-related behaviors. Do we really want to withhold quality care from everyone because some don't take care of their health in the way we think they should? Extending that supposition, we would withhold public education just because not everyone takes it seriously.

Bottom line: In 2014, protections for pre-existing conditions were put in place under the Affordable Care Act. This protection is under continuous threat as insurance company profits are placed above patient care. Universal health care would ensure that everyone was eligible for care regardless of any conditions they may have.

And, if universal health care is so awful, why has every other first-world nation implemented it? These countries include: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and the U.K.

Changing collective minds can seem impossible. But there is precedent. Once unimaginable large-scale change has happened in our lifetime (e.g. legalization of gay marriage, election of the first black president of the U.S. and the #MeToo movement), and support for universal health care has never been higher (71% in favor, according to a 2019 Hill-HarrisX survey ).

Point: As Chuck Pagano said, "If you don't have your health, you don't have anything."

Counterpoint: If good health is everything, why don't we vote as if our lives depended on it? This pandemic has taught us that it does.

Bottom line: Launching universal health care in the U.S. could be a silver lining in the dark cloud of this pandemic. Rather than pay lip service to what really matters, let's actually do something by putting our votes in service of what we really care about: the long-term physical and economic health of our families, our communities and our country.

Photos: Hospital Heroes

Tags: health insurance , health care , Coronavirus , pandemic , New Normal

Most Popular

Patient Advice

OTC Medicine & Health Products

health disclaimer »

Disclaimer and a note about your health ».

Sign Up for Our 3-Day Guide to Medicare

Confused about Medicare? We can help you understand the different Medicare coverage options available to help you choose the best Medicare coverage for you or a loved one.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

Medicare advantage hmos vs. ppos.

Paul Wynn March 29, 2024

Symptoms of Magnesium Deficiency

Elaine K. Howley March 29, 2024

How Chemotherapy Works

Payton Sy March 28, 2024

Stomach Bloating Causes and Relief

Tamara Duker Freuman and Gretel Schueller March 27, 2024

Medicare vs. Medicaid

David Levine March 27, 2024

Early Signs of Diabetes

Toby Smithson March 26, 2024

How to Request a Hospital Transfer

Elaine K. Howley March 26, 2024

Breastfeeding Tips

Vanessa Caceres March 22, 2024

Does Medicare Cover Home Health Care?

Paul Wynn March 21, 2024

Coming Soon: Best Senior Living Ratings

Ben Harder , Zach Adams and Joshua H. Sandefur March 18, 2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Medicina (Kaunas)

Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate

Gabriel zieff.

1 Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; ude.cnu.liame@rrekz (Z.Y.K.); [email protected] (L.S.)

Zachary Y. Kerr

Justin b. moore.

2 Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA; ude.htlaehekaw@eroomsuj

This commentary offers discussion on the pros and cons of universal healthcare in the United States. Disadvantages of universal healthcare include significant upfront costs and logistical challenges. On the other hand, universal healthcare may lead to a healthier populace, and thus, in the long-term, help to mitigate the economic costs of an unhealthy nation. In particular, substantial health disparities exist in the United States, with low socio–economic status segments of the population subject to decreased access to quality healthcare and increased risk of non-communicable chronic conditions such as obesity and type II diabetes, among other determinants of poor health. While the implementation of universal healthcare would be complicated and challenging, we argue that shifting from a market-based system to a universal healthcare system is necessary. Universal healthcare will better facilitate and encourage sustainable, preventive health practices and be more advantageous for the long-term public health and economy of the United States.

1. Introduction

Healthcare is one of the most significant socio–political topics in the United States (U.S.), and citizens currently rank “healthcare” as the most important issue when it comes to voting [ 1 ]. The U.S. has historically utilized a mixed public/private approach to healthcare. In this approach, citizens or businesses can obtain health insurance from private (e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente) insurance companies, while individuals may also qualify for public (e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran’s Affairs), government-subsidized health insurance. In contrast, the vast majority of post-industrial, Westernized nations have used various approaches to provide entirely or largely governmentally subsidized, universal healthcare to all citizens regardless of socio–economic status (SES), employment status, or ability to pay. The World Health Organization defines universal healthcare as “ensuring that all people have access to needed health services (including prevention, promotion, treatment, rehabilitation and palliation) of sufficient quality to be effective while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user the financial hardship” [ 2 ]. Importantly, the Obama-era passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to move the U.S. closer to universal healthcare by expanding health coverage for millions of Americans (e.g., via Medicaid expansion, launch of health insurance marketplaces for private coverage) including for citizens across income levels, age, race, and ethnicity.

Differing versions of universal healthcare are possible. The United Kingdom’s National Health Services can be considered a fairly traditional version of universal healthcare with few options for, and minimal use of, privatized care [ 3 ]. On the other hand, European countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany have utilized a blended system with substantial government and market-based components [ 4 , 5 ]. For example, Germany uses a multi-payer healthcare system in which subsidized health care is widely available for low-income citizens, yet private options—which provide the same quality and level of care as the subsidized option—are also available to higher income individuals. Thus, universal healthcare does not necessarily preclude the role of private providers within the healthcare system, but rather ensures that equity and effectiveness of care at population and individual levels are a reference and expectation for the system as a whole. In line with this, versions of universal healthcare have been implemented by countries with diverse political backgrounds (e.g., not limited to traditionally “socialist/liberal” countries), including some with very high degrees of economic freedom [ 6 , 7 ].

Determining the degree to which a nation’s healthcare is “universal” is complex and is not a “black and white” issue. For example, government backing, public will, and basic financing structure, among many other factors must be extensively considered. While an in-depth analysis of each of these factors is beyond the scope of this commentary, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to purely private, market-based, and governmental, universal approaches to healthcare, as well as for policies that lie somewhere in-between. This opinion piece will highlight arguments for and against universal healthcare in the U.S., followed by the authors’ stance on this issue and concluding remarks.

2. Argument against Universal Healthcare

Though the majority of post-industrial Westernized nations employ a universal healthcare model, few—if any—of these nations are as geographically large, populous, or ethnically/racially diverse as the U.S. Different regions in the U.S. are defined by distinct cultural identities, citizens have unique religious and political values, and the populace spans the socio–economic spectrum. Moreover, heterogenous climates and population densities confer different health needs and challenges across the U.S. [ 8 ]. Thus, critics of universal healthcare in the U.S. argue that implementation would not be as feasible—organizationally or financially—as other developed nations [ 9 ]. There is indeed agreement that realization of universal healthcare in the U.S. would necessitate significant upfront costs [ 10 ]. These costs would include those related to: (i) physical and technological infrastructural changes to the healthcare system, including at the government level (i.e., federal, state, local) as well as the level of the provider (e.g., hospital, out-patient clinic, pharmacy, etc.); (ii) insuring/treating a significant, previously uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of the population; and (iii) expansion of the range of services provided (e.g., dental, vision, hearing) [ 10 ].

The cost of a universal healthcare system would depend on its structure, benefit levels, and extent of coverage. However, most proposals would entail increased federal taxes, at least for higher earners [ 4 , 11 , 12 ]. One proposal for universal healthcare recently pushed included options such as a 7.5% payroll tax plus a 4% income tax on all Americans, with higher-income citizens subjected to higher taxes [ 13 ]. However, outside projections suggest that these tax proposals would not be sufficient to fund this plan. In terms of the national economic toll, cost estimations of this proposal range from USD 32 to 44 trillion across 10 years, while deficit estimations range from USD 1.1 to 2.1 trillion per year [ 14 ].

Beyond individual and federal costs, other common arguments against universal healthcare include the potential for general system inefficiency, including lengthy wait-times for patients and a hampering of medical entrepreneurship and innovation [ 3 , 12 , 15 , 16 ]. Such critiques are not new, as exemplified by rhetoric surrounding the Clinton Administration’s Health Security Act which was labeled as “government meddling” in medical care that would result in “big government inefficiency” [ 12 , 15 ]. The ACA has been met with similar resistance and bombast (e.g., the “repeal and replace” right-leaning rallying cry) as a result of perceived inefficiency and unwanted government involvement. As an example of lengthy wait times associated with universal coverage, in 2017 Canadians were on waiting lists for an estimated 1,040,791 procedures, and the median wait time for arthroplastic surgery was 20–52 weeks [ 17 ]. Similarly, average waiting time for elective hospital-based care in the United Kingdom is 46 days, while some patients wait over a year (3). Increased wait times in the U.S. would likely occur—at least in the short term—as a result of a steep rise in the number of primary and emergency care visits (due to eliminating the financial barrier to seek care), as well as general wastefulness, inefficiency, and disorganization that is often associated with bureaucratic, government-run agencies.

3. Argument for Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare in the U.S., which may or may not include private market-based options, offer several noteworthy advantages compared to exclusive systems with inequitable access to quality care including: (i) addressing the growing chronic disease crisis; (ii) mitigating the economic costs associated with said crisis; (iii) reducing the vast health disparities that exist between differing SES segments of the population; and (iv) increasing opportunities for preventive health initiatives [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Perhaps the most striking advantage of a universal healthcare system in the U.S. is the potential to address the epidemic level of non-communicable chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, and obesity, all of which strain the national economy [ 22 , 23 ]. The economic strain associated with an unhealthy population is particularly evident among low SES individuals. Having a low SES is associated with many unfavorable health determinants, including decreased access to, and quality of health insurance which impact health outcomes and life expectancies [ 24 ]. Thus, the low SES segments of the population are in most need of accessible, quality health insurance, and economic strain results from an unhealthy and uninsured low SES [ 25 , 26 ]. For example, diabetics with low SES have a greater mortality risk than diabetics with higher SES, and the uninsured diabetic population is responsible for 55% more emergency room visits each year than their insured diabetic counterparts [ 27 , 28 ]. Like diabetes, hypertension—the leading risk factor for death worldwide [ 29 ], has a much higher prevalence among low SES populations [ 30 ]. It is estimated that individuals with uncontrolled hypertension have more than USD 2000 greater annual healthcare costs than their normotensive counterparts [ 31 ]. Lastly, the incidence of obesity is also much greater among low SES populations [ 32 ]. The costs of obesity in the U.S., when limited to lost productivity alone, have been projected to equate to USD 66 billion annually [ 33 ]. Accessible, affordable healthcare may enable earlier intervention to prevent—or limit risk associated with—non-communicable chronic diseases, improve the overall public health of the U.S., and decrease the economic strain associated with an unhealthy low-SES.

Preventive Initiatives within A Universal Healthcare Model

Beyond providing insurance coverage for a substantial, uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of society—and thereby reducing disparities and unequal access to care among all segments of the population—there is great potential for universal healthcare models to embrace value-based care [ 4 , 20 , 34 ]. Value-based care can be thought of as appropriate and affordable care (tackling wastes), and integration of services and systems of care (i.e., hospital, primary, public health), including preventive care that considers the long-term health and economy of a nation [ 34 , 35 ]. In line with this, the ACA has worked in parallel with population-level health programs such as the Healthy People Initiative by targeting modifiable determinants of health including physical activity, obesity, and environmental quality, among others [ 36 ]. Given that a universal healthcare plan would force the government to pay for costly care and treatments related to complications resulting from preventable, non-communicable chronic diseases, the government may be more incentivized to (i) offer primary prevention of chronic disease risk prior to the onset of irreversible complications, and (ii) promote wide-spread preventive efforts across multiple societal domains. It is also worth acknowledging here that the national public health response to the novel Coronavirus-19 virus is a salient and striking contemporary example of a situation in which there continues to be a need to expeditiously coordinate multiple levels of policy, care, and prevention.

Preventive measures lessen costs associated with an uninsured and/or unhealthy population [ 37 ]. For example, investing USD 10 per person annually in community-based programs aimed at combatting physical inactivity, poor nutrition, and smoking in the U.S. could save more than USD 16 billion annually within five years, equating to a return of USD 5.60 for every dollar spent [ 38 ]. Another recent analysis suggests that if 18% more U.S. elementary-school children participated in 25 min of physical activity three times per week, savings attributed to medical costs and productivity would amount to USD 21.9 billion over their lifetime [ 39 ]. Additionally, simple behavioral changes can have major clinical implications. For example, simply brisk walking for 30 min per day (≥15 MET-hours/week) has been associated with a 50% reduction in type II diabetes [ 40 ]. While universal healthcare does not necessarily mean that health policies supporting prevention will be enacted, it may be more likely to promote healthy (i) lifestyle behaviors (e.g., physical activity), (ii) environmental factors (e.g., safe, green spaces in low and middle-income communities), and (iii.) policies (e.g., banning sweetened beverages in public schools) compared to a non-inclusive system [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

Nordic nations provide an example of inclusive healthcare coupled with multi-layered preventive efforts [ 41 ]. In this model, all citizens are given the same comprehensive healthcare while social determinants of health are targeted. This includes “mobilizing and coordinating a large number of players in society,” which encourages cooperation among “players” including municipal political bodies, voluntary organizations, and educational institutions [ 41 ]. Developmental and infrastructural contributions from multiple segments of society to a healthcare system may also better encourage government accountability compared to a system in which a select group of private insurers and citizens are the only “stakeholders.” Coordinated efforts on various non-insurance-related fronts have focused on obesity, mental health, and physical activity [ 41 ]. Such coordinated efforts within the Nordic model have translated to positive health outcomes. For example, the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index provides an overall score of 0–100 (0 being the worst) for healthcare access and quality across 195 countries and reflects rates of 32 preventable causes of death. Nordic nations had an average HAQ score of 95.4, with four of the five nations achieving scores within the top 10 worldwide [ 42 ]. Though far more heterogenous compared to Nordic nations, (e.g., culturally, geographically, racially, etc.), the U.S. had a score of 89 (29th overall) [ 42 ]. To provide further context, other industrialized nations, which are more comparable to the U.S. than Nordic nations, also ranked higher than the U.S. including Germany (92, 19th overall), Canada (94, 14th overall), Switzerland (96, 7th overall), and the Netherlands (96, 3rd overall) [ 42 ].

4. Conclusions

Non-inclusive, inequitable systems limit quality healthcare access to those who can afford it or have employer-sponsored insurance. These policies exacerbate health disparities by failing to prioritize preventive measures at the environmental, policy, and individual level. Low SES segments of the population are particularly vulnerable within a healthcare system that does not prioritize affordable care for all or address important determinants of health. Failing to prioritize comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all members of society and straying further from prevention will harm the health and economy of the U.S. While there are undoubtedly great economic costs associated with universal healthcare in the U.S., we argue that in the long-run, these costs will be worthwhile, and will eventually be offset by a healthier populace whose health is less economically burdensome. Passing of the Obama-era ACA was a positive step forward as evident by the decline in uninsured U.S. citizens (estimated 7–16.4 million) and Medicare’s lower rate of spending following the legislation [ 43 ]. The U.S. must resist the current political efforts to dislodge the inclusive tenets of the Affordable Care Act. Again, this is not to suggest that universal healthcare will be a cure-all, as social determinants of health must also be addressed. However, addressing these determinants will take time and universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens is needed now. Only through universal and inclusive healthcare will we be able to pave an economically sustainable path towards true public health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Z., Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; writing-original draft preparation, G.Z.; writing-review and editing, Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; supervision, L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Public Policy — Argumentative Essay Should Health Care Be Free

Argumentative Essay Should Health Care Be Free

• Categories: Public Policy

About this sample

Words: 520 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 520 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1817 words

3 pages / 1372 words

3.5 pages / 1682 words

5 pages / 2459 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Public Policy

In today's fast-paced and competitive society, the pursuit of happiness has become a central focus for many individuals. The documentary "Happy" explores the different factors that contribute to human happiness and provides [...]

Public policy plays a crucial role in managing the delicate balance between development and environmental preservation. As cities around the world grapple with the challenges of urbanization, policymakers face the daunting task [...]

Policy is a relatively stable, purposive course of action or inaction followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern (Anderson). Based on the definition given public policy basically means [...]

In the recent years, the conversations of gun violence are increasing dramatically because of some homicide cases. Truly, the gun violence has been the one of biggest elements which threat both personal safety and national [...]

The Policy on Government Security has been renewed as part of the Policy Suite Renewal Initiative and the government's management agenda. It establishes management expectations that are consistent with Government of Canada [...]

For thousands of years, history has been kept alive through the written word; me and women of virtue, in particular, have recorded social struggles so that future generations can know about the events that transpired over the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Health Care for All, by All

Conference examines need for increased investment in primary care, community health.

This article is part of Harvard Medical School’s continuing coverage of medicine, biomedical research, medical education and policy related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the disease COVID-19.

During a summer marked by public demonstrations in the U.S. calling attention to systemic racial injustice, Harvard Medical School global health leaders gathered online for a webinar to examine how to best achieve a more equitable and just health care system.

In June, the HMS Center for Primary Care and the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS hosted a virtual conversation on the COVID-19 pandemic and the health equities the pandemic has exposed.

Get more HMS news here

The conversation began by examining the evolving role of community health centers in responding to the pandemic, looking specifically at their role in serving communities of color which have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19.

Among the panelists was Claire-Cecile Pierre , instructor in global health and social medicine at HMS and chief medical officer of Harbor Health Services.

“Over 60 percent of the patients we serve are of a racial or ethnic minority. Right here in the U.S., we represent in some ways an extension of the public health system in a community-based approach,” said Pierre.

Community health centers, first established in the 1960s, are now present in every U.S. state, where they provide primary care to approximately 29 million people, regardless of their ability to pay. Designed to serve the most vulnerable populations, community health centers (CHCs) have been hit hard by the pandemic.

“As of May 29, a thousand of our sites had to close—and at a time when people knew their neighbors, understood the languages, and had built trust within community,” Pierre said.

This means the community health centers that remain open have to work even harder while the federal government prioritizes hospital care, she added.

“As CHCs that care for people who are most affected, the pandemic has impacted us emotionally. It has affected us financially, as we had to make really difficult decisions. We now realize that our very history of structural racism, that we were trying to combat,... 55 years later continues to be alive and something that we must continue to work on,” Pierre said.

Panelists went on to discuss community involvement in health care delivery, reflecting on the ways the pandemic has affected community engagement and opportunities for improvement.

“Community health centers across this country are on the front lines of this crisis, supporting those who've born a disproportionate risk, whether it's the COVID-19 pandemic or other epidemics that cause premature death,” said Raj Panjabi , HMS assistant professor of medicine, part-time, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and CEO of Last Mile Health .

The impact of community health centers extends beyond providing health care for the underserved and the financial gains are undeniable, he said.

Investment gains

“For every dollar invested in paying, supporting and integrating community health workers within the health care team, you see a $10 return. So it's a 10 to one ROI [return of investment],” Panjabi said. “How does that happen? By increasing healthy life years, by helping to stop and respond to outbreaks, and by creating jobs in places where unemployment is very high.”

Randomized control trials have shown that community health workers improve health while reducing costly hospitalizations and readmissions. In fact, studies have shown that this can save Medicaid $4,200 per beneficiary . If scaled to just a quarter of U.S. Medicaid beneficiaries, community health workers would save taxpayers $78 billion annually.

Panjabi went on to describe the significance of community health care in the context of COVID-19, saying that poor and marginalized communities that are excluded from vaccines, testing and treatment tell the story of every pandemic in human history. A community-based approach to COVID-19 must start and stop inside communities, he added, and this can only be done through increased investment to fund more testing, contact tracing and treatment.

Despite ample medical literature touting the positive impact of primary care on population health and health costs , investments in primary care and the integration of primary care into the overall system have not risen to meet the field’s potential. In fact, the primary care sector is projected to lose $15 billion in 2020 , threatening practice viability and diminishing the already insufficient number of providers in the United States, according to an HMS study.

When asked about potential next steps for policymakers looking to build a more resilient, equitable health care system in response to the COVID-19, panelist and former Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark recommended five concrete action items.

“Those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, and there are plenty of lessons coming out of this pandemic that policymakers need to be thinking about pretty urgently. The first one is to look after population health,” Clark said.

Explaining that universal health coverage and well-coordinated health systems are imperative in fighting the pandemic, Clark noted the disproportionately high death rates among those less privileged as a reprehensible outcome in dire need of attention from the U.S. health system.

She also touched on the value of a capitation system and a population-based payment system as examples of the many checks and balances providers need to support wellness and remain accountable.

“A health system planning for pandemics has to provide for essential service continuity, particularly in the poorest countries.” Clark said, noting that in many countries more people will die from indirect effects of the pandemic than from the disease itself.

“A way must be found to safely deliver continuity of services … without universal coverage and without a focus on equity, population health and good systems,” said Clark. “If we don't address those things then we won’t have learned much.”

The right to health care

The conversation pivoted to the concept of a universal human right to health care and to the moral and economic argument for increased investment in primary health care.

“Equity has to be an absolute non-negotiable component,” said Donald Berwick , HMS lecturer on Health Care Policy, part-time, at HMS. “The color of your skin or the size of your wallet should not determine the care you get. Everyone ought to have care that works — the best care — there need to be no compromises with the quality of care. And everyone can help.”

Pierre honed in on the ‘how’ part of this approach.

“I would love to go back to these movements from the past around civil rights that helped galvanize the start of community health centers, which definitely brought us forward,” she said. “If we believe health care is a human right, and we believe there are new ways to deliver it,... how do we ask our policymakers to make a difference and use our creativity there?”

The right to health care should never be in question, panelists said, but they questioned how to find the resources to invest in primary health care in order to build a robust and effective health system. Surely, in the context of today, they said, as we confront pervasive systemic racism and a global pandemic, the economic argument for a system that’s based on whole-person care must be redundant.

“Money can always be found to fight a war, right? It can be found to fight a pandemic,” Clark said. “The case for primary health care as cost effective is extremely strong. So, I think you mount the arguments where they'll find the most willing audience.”

Panjabi urged health sector leaders to adopt not just a moral and economic lens in advocating for primary health care but also a public narrative around security and safety.

“We're just a lot less safe, all of us are. Not in a way where we think of exotic bodies as being diseased and now we're afraid of them, but in a way where we are, in fact, in solidarity with each other,” Panjabi said.

“We can all wear a mask to support each other, for instance, during this COVID crisis. We all should be contributing to public pools of funding so that everyone can have vaccines when they're available for COVID-19, and so that the poorest and the people of color and those more marginalized around the world and in rural communities, for instance, don't get that vaccine last but get it at the same time that others get it,” he said.

David Duong , HMS instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, called on each panelist to imagine the future of primary health care and elucidate necessary actions to arrive there.

Panelists reiterated the call for a moral commitment to improved, equitable health care via primary health care, but they debated how to get everyone on board with the moral argument so more effective care can be designed.

“I believe it's a set of relationships, and a huge part of history, that we need to break. We need to get to the point where—just as when it's time to invest in a war we go through algorithms to make those decisions—there should be a framework for making the argument for investing in health,” said Pierre, before delineating the significance of engaging all health care workers and patients in those moral arguments.

Panjabi highlighted the need to break down walls that confine minds, offices and clinics, saying that the vision ends with investing in the people closest to the problem, which is a basic fundamental value of primary health care.

“We cannot have a future of primary health care without investing in and ensuring that women, people of color and people from marginalized communities are part of the health care team,” he said. “Investment means employment. Investment means promotions. Investment means making them part of your leadership and so, to me, that is what a future of primary health care should and could look like if we start to act now.”

Berwick, who is president emeritus of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and a former administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, called for a shift of power to people and communities so that they are able to advocate for themselves for the type of care they need to thrive.

“I think we need to raise the moral vocabulary. It's a set of moral commitments, and I think the countries that are able to clarify their moral intent will stand a better chance. And I think it can be done,” he said.

Finally, Berwick asked the health care community to unite to form a moral narrative.

“I have come to think that the health care community at large … should try to mobilize itself as a cogent political force, not for itself but for the people it serves. We haven't seen that. The guilds are very well organized, but not the industry. All professionals. Together. Taking the banner for that moral imperative.”

For other articles and opportunities like this, subscribe to the HMS Center for Primary Care’s bi-weekly newsletter and visit the Program in Global Primary Care and Social Change website.

View the archived webinar, Reimagining Primary Healthcare - for all, by all .

Related News

Sustaining Health Care as Crisis in Haiti Escalates

Four decades of collaboration with HMS and beyond laid the groundwork for resilience and hope amid...

What Will It Take to End Tuberculosis?

A boundary-pushing global collaboration is betting on the power of science

What the Pandemic Is Teaching Us About the Immune System

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, immunology may be entering a new golden age

Trending News

Schizophrenia and Aging May Share a Biological Basis

Synchronized changes in gene activity may underlie cognitive impairment in both conditions

How Does the Brain Make Decisions?

Mouse study provides insights into communication between neurons during decision-making

Turbocharging CRISPR to Understand How the Immune System Fights Cancer

New approach to studying immune gene function could improve treatments for cancer, other diseases

© 2024 by The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Health Care Should Be Free For Everyone Essay

Have you ever seen the dirty, homeless people on the streets? Maybe if they had access to health care, they could clean up and look better. Nevertheless, if that homeless person could clean themselves up, they could interview for a job and start a new life. Major reasons for this is, it would save lives, in the long run it’s cost-effective, and providing free health care helps people gain access to insurance. Basic health care should be free to everyone because, it could save lives, in the long run it’s cost-effective, and providing free health care health people gain access to insurance. To start off, basic health care should be free for everyone because it could save lives. On the Huffington Post website, Senator Bernie Sanders wrote an article called, ‘Health care is a Right, Not a Privilege.’ In the article he states,” More than 18,000 Americans die from preventable illnesses because they don’t get to a doctor when they should.” If everyone has free health care, less lives will be lost. More lives of young people would be saved. The homeless or uninsured would be able to go to a hospital to get treated. To sum up, free health care could save lives. Secondly, …show more content…

When considering the choice if basic health care should be free for everyone, the choice should definitely be yes. Basic health care should be free for everyone because it will save the lives of people who wouldn 't ordinarily live, it has been shown by two sources that it will help slow the growth of health costs, and providing free health care will also lead to providing insurance for people who don 't have insurance yet. If basic health care does not become free for everyone, our population will drop. The only people left in the world will be the people who are rich and have enough money to have free health care. Basic health care should be free for everyone because it 's the right thing to do and we’re helping each other

Single Payer Health Care Case Study

The U.S. government should look into a system that will be less government involvement and more benefits for the people. No government should have a say so whether or not you should have health care or you will get penalized. The Government is there to govern the country not how an individual decides to handle their healthcare. The Obamacare was supposed to help those who

The Pros And Cons Of Socialized Healthcare

This would also stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health and reduce overall healthcare spending to name a few, (healthcare.procon.org, n.d.). The con argument is this results in socialism and is the individual’s responsibility, it’s not the governments role to secure healthcare and this would decrease the quality and availability of healthcare and increase debt and spending, (healthcare.procon.org,

Universal Health Care Argument Analysis

On the surface, the author seems to have strengthened their argument; however, it is unclear if this evidence is true or realistic. Many people would argue that they have not paid $6,000 on health care for themselves in the past year. The author uses this information and Logos, or logic and reason, to reason and observe that a Universal Health Care System would cost too much. The author also uses logic to reason that money would have to be taken from other areas of the government such as Education and Public Defense to fund health care. Again, this evidence

Why Do Individuals Buy Insurance Plans

Every person has at least a few things that are of importance to them and they not have the means to protect that item. That is why the government should at least offer a minimum insurance

Summary: The Health Care Universal System

The health care universal system would raise the cost because free health care isn 't really free because it comes out of every body 's taxes that pay taxes. Doctor’s flexibility decrease because of how many patients they have to see a day they do not have enough time and seeing one hundred parents a day is above their pay grade. People who are well and have a good track or taking care of themselves and don 't need a doctor pay for those who are obese, healthy people who don’t feel the need to pay for health care shouldn 't if they don 't go to the doctor. People who have business are becoming unfavorable. Health care is expensive currently and the quality that doctors give you is not to their full potential.

What Are The Pros And Cons Of Universal Healthcare

I believe that healthcare should be treated as a basic right. Many countries have Universal Healthcare and most of their citizens are much healthier and happier than citizens in the United States. There are pros and cons to every law or reform that is created, in my opinion, I think that the pros out way the cons for Universal Healthcare. Other countries care about their citizens, whereas the American government only cares about money and not the well-being of the population. There are many benefits to having Universal Healthcare, for instance, the stress of how you are going to afford a pregnancy, illness, disease, anything that may come about medical wise is not something to stress over with Universal Healthcare because tax dollars that all citizens pay for help aid in the cost.

Delayed Access To Healthcare

Although developed nations have healthcare available sometimes its impossible to have access to it. One thing almost all developed nations have in common with each other is that healthcare is never free. Some nations require citizens to pay more and some may require less, but there is always a price. The United States is a perfect example of this, the financially wealthy benefits most from our healthcare system while our more vulnerable populations that’s living in poverty have little to no benefits from our healthcare system at all. This then affects the diseases most prevalent in within each community and between developed and developing nations.

Against Universal Health Care

Firstly, universal health care would allow for everyone to get the necessary care they need regardless of their medical problem or financial background.

Summary: Eliminating Disparities In Health Care

Health services is a fundamental part in trying to stop the inequalities in health status. Eliminating disparities in insurance coverage, having access, or quality of care would help assure growth in a strong productivity base for greater equality. This also would insinuate that everyone is now able and accountable for receiving health care service.

Health Insurance Essay

Employment is the most efficient and cost effective path to receiving the best healthcare. Free health care puts unneeded financial strain on taxpayers and the federal government. In addition, reversing a free healthcare system will not be tolerated by Americans in years to

Access To Health Care Case Study

1. Should all world citizens have free (no cost) access to basic health care, or should nations have the right to limit access to health care based on their societal values and goals? No. – this answer is ambiguous 2.

Sicko Movie Analysis

After watching the documentary “SICKO” for the past couple of days, it has made me think about the difference in healthcare systems around the world. In Canada, we have access to free health care which is paid for through tax payers. By having a health card in Ontario, it entitles us to health care services which is paid for by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). The United Kingdom also has a similar health system called the National Health Service (NHS) which provides healthcare for citizens and it is also funded by taxes. They are established on the idea that healthcare should be available to all (for free), regardless of wealth or status.

Response To Mental Health

Stephanie, I agree with both of your post responses. Having universal can save a lot of peoples lives, especially the elderly as well as children. I believe that if we all have access to medical assistance, it can help relieve that stress from so many families. Knowing that if your children get sick and you cant do anything about it because lack of insurance, is very stressful for parents. I can see why our nation is one of the worst when it comes to our health care system.

How To Have Free Health Insurance Persuasive Essay

However, if the person has insurance, he/she will get the medicine. But for the people who don't have insurance they don't find anyone take care of them. No one has plans to become sick or hurt, but most people require medical care at some points. Health insurance covers these expenses and offers many others significant benefits. Having a free Insurance would make our life better living.

Persuasive Essay On Health Care

Health care is a basic American necessity. Many are required to have it, most are better off with is others don’t need it as much. No one can simply just live without it so why is it so expensive isn’t it there to help us? It’s costing us money that could be spent on other important necessities. One way in making health care more affordable is by rather than giving the kids money that you received for them and allowing your children to spend it on silly things, they will most likely only use a couple times it should be a requirement that a part of that money be put into the health care of that specific child.

More about Health Care Should Be Free For Everyone Essay

Why Healthcare Should Be Free

Why healthcare should be free. Every day we see people seek, we watch the news and we see people can’t pay their medicines because they are really expensive. I saw someone staying all month in bed because he could not pay the hospital. There is a lot of people dead just because of not having free healthcare they want to be healthy but there is no opportunity for them. Healthcare should be free because we have a lot of people who are not insured, we have high prices for medicines, and also our people deserve free healthcare because they pay taxes for everything. First of all, if we see some of the facts, 44 million of people have no insurance according to estimation of 2015. http://www.pbs.org/. The people who are most at risk today are those who have no insurance at all because they cannot get service when they needed and they are not catching real problems. It was a girl named Alicia. This girl had a car accident and was in a life or death conditions. What …show more content…

They figured out she did not had insurance and they were waiting till someone comes and pay for her bot no one came. So the girl died. “Sherry Glied, PHD, associated professor of public health Columbia University” shared this fact in public. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu. Second of all, healthcare should be free because the prices of medicines, hospitals, doctors, are very expensive. Hundreds of millions people are into poverty annually by the cost of accessing their local healthcare services. “David Nicholas says that the world need free healthcare for all”. https://www.linkedin.com. He says that Americans spend twice as much on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world. Also Dr. Mercola, support him in one article when she said that there is no freedom with this prices Joni Capo Professor: Dominique Brown 5/10/16 INRW 0420 Argumentative Essay that we pay for hospital.

Care For All : A Case For Universal Healthcare

The economics of healthcare is not at all simple. What you put in is certainly not necessarily indicative of what you get out, as shown by the striking discrepancy between what we pay and what we get out of our healthcare system. This is demonstrated further by comparing our system to those of France and Italy, who come in first and second, respectively, in WHO’s international ranking of healthcare systems (“World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems”). Counter to what many Americans may believe, a number of European nations do not have completely socialized medicine.

Health Care Right or Privilege?

As I stated previously I think that all people should be allowed access to Health Care and I do think it is a right as an individual. I do believe also that it should not just be free. I feel that all persons should have to pay something for the services and medication they receive. With the cost of medical care estimated to reach the trillions in the next decade we must do something to help to keep those costs down as low as possible. However under the current condition of our economy, with nearly 10 million people in the country being out of work it would

Argumentative Essay: Free Healthcare In The United States

Even though free healthcare is negatively associated with U.S. debt, deficit, and higher tax pay, all Americans should have the absolute right to free healthcare because it can save lives.

Essay Free Healthcare in the US

• 7 Works Cited

I strongly believe that all American citizens should be entitled free healthcare. This is due to that fact that this can play a big role of ensuring that there is an improved access to health services. In addition, ensuring that all American citizens have an access to the right health care will also decrease health care costs. For instance, by allowing people to receive regular and preventive medical care and not wait until they are persistently ill to request treatment when medical costs are much higher (Niles, 2011). In relation to this free health care will promote equal chance by decreasing the number of people who are economically deprived in society (Niles, 2011). This can be because of bad health and other medically-related financial problems.

Obamacare : The Land Of The Free

America: The Land of the Free. Or, as someone who is familiar with the US health care system would call it, America: The Land of Overpriced Health Care That Covers a Fraction of it’s People. The US spends more money on their health care than any other country, yet there is a myriad of problems that exist within the system preventing it from being efficient. Billions of dollars are poured into the system for medication and treatment, when a lot of this spending is unnecessary.

Deductive Arguments For Universal Healthcare

Should Universal Healthcare be available to all regardless of their ability to pay in the same way that other services like education are available to all for free?

Free Healthcare And Health Care

As humans, the right to medical care is something that should be seen as a privilege. No one should have to worry about if they are able to receive the healthcare that they require. Everyone has the right to receive the care that they should need. The only way to provide equal care for everyone in America is if healthcare were to be free. Though many countries around the world are able to provide free healthcare, this is something that is unfortunately not possible for all countries. There would be many issues that would arise if free healthcare were provided here in America. Due to the fact that quality care would be difficult to find, taxes would be increased, and much more, health care should not be free.

A Universal Health Care System

Americans should have access to healthcare because no American should go in debt in order to be seen by a Doctor.

Free Health Care Research Paper

Another benefit associated with free health care system is that it preserves life as it ensures free treatment to the entire citizens despite their financial status. Apparently, the life of a human being is sacred and incomparable with any amount of money. It is unethical for an individual to die due to lack of finance. As stated by Obama, the United States is known to have the most skilled doctors and healthcare facilities in the world (526). Ironically, the two third of the Americans have no access to health insurance cover, meaning, they cannot afford to get the health services from the best doctors and the best facilities in the country. To protect life and to avoid unnecessary deaths of the innocent citizens, free access to medical services should be a distinct system to be employed in the United States of America.

Universal Health Care And Healthcare

Many developed countries such as Canada and United Kingdom have embraced universal health care with United States being the only exception that has not embraced universal health care to its citizens. One of the reasons is that universal health care will ensured that all Americans citizens to have the right to health care and will decrease health care costs by allowing people to receive regular and prevent medical care. And not have to wait until they are chronically ill to seek treatment when medical costs is way much higher. Another reason is health care should be a right because it will promote equal opportunity by decreasing the number of people who are economically disadvantaged in society due to bad health and medically-related financial trouble. And they won’t have to worry about when they get sick and have to pay. So I really think is a good idea that the government should provide health

The United States Should Provide Universal Health Care For All Of Its Citizens

I. More than 43 million Americans reported being uninsured throughout 2002 and millions more lack coverage for shorter periods. The lack of insurance negatively affects not only the uninsured, but their families, the communities in which they live, and the country as a whole (The Institute of Medicine).

Is health care a basic right? Essay

Health Care, like all other services comes at a financial cost. While we should strive to make health care available and affordable to all, the bottom line is that it is a service that can only be provided if the voting populous agrees on its need. Basic human rights do not cost money. We have the right to life and liberty which is great and we do not have to pay for it. We have the right to basic medical care as well. But we can only have that if other people

Persuasive Essay On Health Care

Healthcare is the maintenance or improvement of health and the prevention of sickness diagnosis, and treatment of disease, illness, and injury. Because of the need for healthcare is so important, the America government had to come up with a way to make sure people have healthcare and be able to pay for it. The government came up with a healthcare system that use insurance and premiums to make sure one has coverage when they go to the hospital for healthcare needs. If the government and hospitals really care about people’s health, then why do they make insurance and premiums so high that people cannot afford them? In 2005 there was an estimate 45 million Americans that lacked health insurance, and the numbers have been climbing since (Clemmitt, Universal Coverage 1). If the government says that they care about human life, then there should just be universal coverage so everyone can get their healthcare needs met no matter if that person is poor or rich.

U.S. Healthcare vs Canada and India

In principle, they should be able to get comprehensive, free, publicly financed and publicly provided healthcare. In practice, individuals have to pay a significant amount of funds out-of-pocket to obtain any healthcare and it is often the main source of healthcare, even for the poor.

Should The Government Provide Free Health Care For All Citizens?

The fact that health care isn’t free for everyone causes problems. Wealthy people being able to afford health care and poor people not are the first and biggest problem that we have today. This is very unfair. Whether a person is rich or poor, they still need the proper treatment and care in order for

Related Topics

• Health economics
• Health insurance
• Universal health care
• United States

Argumentative Essay: Should Health Care Be Free?

Show More Healthcare should be free because some people can not pay for a visit. Someone can be really ill and need a trip to the doctors but it is expensive to pay for it. There are times i’ve seen where adults and/or children have been in car accidents and those people result in being hurt. It is not those people’s fault that someone else caused an accident and so therefore there should be healthcare for those type of people who aren’t really the cause of an injury. If people have and can afford health care then those people have a better chance to be living their lives healthier knowing that they get checked up and there is really nothing to worry about. In addition to this, health care should be free because if people can’t afford to pay and someone is really ill then there might be a chance …show more content… Health care needs to be free because my friend needed braces but her mother was not able to afford it because it was too expensive. If healthcare was free then my friend wouldn’t have a problem getting braces and she wouldn’t be insecure about her smile. Opponents may argue that health care shouldn’t be free because the government has to pay more taxes. Yet, if all adults paid for health care it would save them a lot of money. It would save them trips from having to save up money for a check up but not only that, but also all the other check ups like for example a dentist appointment: “I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room” (www.amsa.org). The only way to get free health care is by paying more money to get yourselves a visitHealth care shouldn’t be free because adults

Related Documents

Persuasive essay on the cost of healthcare.

Healthcare costs do not have to be so astronomically priced. A doctor who comes into your room for 15 minutes practically gets money thrown into his pockets, but for what? For telling you that you have to take some Tylenol and take a nap? Why does a test that takes 5 minutes cost 500 dollars? The United States Healthcare system needs to put together care at a more affordable cost or we all might as well pray for death sooner than later.…

Argumentative Essay On Health Care Cost

Today many Americans are increasingly concerned about their health care. About 18.7% of Americans currently do not have healthcare. This is due to individuals not having enough money to pay for it. And not even as individuals but as a married couple there still is not enough to cover that horrid bill. On top of the cost not many people get medical treatment so that 's wasted money that could be used for other bills.…

Essay On Free Health Care

The government should promote “the general welfare” as said in the Declaration of Independence. Free education, public law enforcement, public road maintenance is promoted for a just society, let’s make free health care another reason for a just society. The United States government has set aside the health of the people because its exclusive focus is set on the economy. The fact that the U.S. doesn’t provide free healthcare for…

Sick Around America Reflection

We need to copy the way other nations provide health insurance for their people, because there is no need reason why a person who works 20 years of their life with a company to be let go 5 years before retirement and then suffer from a heart dieses and lose all of their life earning spending it in medical expenses and to later go into bankruptcy. If we want free and avoidable health care for everyone, then everyone in the US would have to provide some type of payment that is based on what they make yearly. Massachusetts was a state, in 2009, that required all of the people living there a requirement to pay for insurance. Yes it is a good idea, but it can not work with just one state doing so.…

Health Insurance Research Papers

People never know when something might happen to them, so everyone should have health insurance. Whenever something bad occurs, we should not worry about how much it will cost because it is a matter of our life. Although some people think that health insurance shouldn’t be required due to its high price, health insurance should be required for all the United States citizens because it saves peoples’ lives, and people have less sickness. When everyone has health insurance, it can save lots of peoples’ lives.…

Single Payer Health Care Research Paper

The United States should have a single payer health care system. They should have a single payer healthcare system because it’s more affordable. It will be much easier to go to the doctor when people are sick. People won’t have to worry about the crazy emergency room prices or if that hospital accepts your insurance because it will accept everyone's. Therefore having a single payer healthcare system will make it more affordable, better access to healthcare, and would accept your insurance.…

Compare And Contrast The Liberal Party Views On Health Care

Everyone has a fundamental right to have access in health care, it should not be like a business. Everyone is entitled on healthcare insurance; no one should become bankrupt because they can't afford to pay. We, the Liberal Party, believe that health care is an equal right of all people, the execution of the right through an insurance system provides universal health insurance, with unbiased financing of health care.…

The Pros And Cons Of Universal Healthcare

Universal Healthcare Should Not Be Allowed Universal Healthcare in the United States of American is very expensive compared to other countries like Canada and England. Americans spend more than 50% on health care than the next countries. For America to pay for Universal Healthcare, the government will have increased taxes on our wages, Doctors would have to take a pay cut, people would overuse healthcare, and we would get less than quality care. This paper will present an argument on one side of that debate, consider objections from the other side, and will defend the position that the Universal Healthcare should not be free for the American people.…

Health Care Persuasive Essay

Health care affects us all whether we like it or not. Health care is a very controversial topic because many are not happy with the new “Obama care” coverage due to the fact that it requires state funding. Some tax payers do not feel they should be responsible for paying for people who need health coverage. Individuals that go long periods of time without regular check-ups are at risk for medical conditions that require serious extensive medical treatment. Personally, I believe that everyone should have affordable health care coverage.…

Argumentative Essay On Affordable Health Care

The right to affordable health care is as sacrosanct as the right to be free, if not more. The most important issue is making medical care a right for everyone at an affordable price. American health care has an insurance-based system; thus, to get affordable and efficient medical help, you should be insured. Currently, there are about 44 million uninsured Americans. According to Elizabeth Bradley, the author of the book The American Health Care Paradox, the paradox of today’s system is that “United States spends so much on health care but continues to lag behind in health outcomes” (33).…

Pros And Cons Of Free Healthcare

In Article One, Section 8 of the constitution it states that we are “to promote general welfare.” Health care, just like voting, is not a privilege, but an inalienable right. President Barack Obama said “I think it [health care] should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that." Although, I realize that it may require higher taxes, there are ways to avoid this that people choose to ignore.…

Should The Government Should Share The Cost Of Healthcare

I feel that healthcare is fundamental right and is need to protect life, which our government should fundamental protect this right for everybody. A government protected health care serves to protect the wellbeing of those who would not have access to any form of health care like low-income families, foster children and homeless. It gives our nation the ability to protect our country’s social interest such as birth control programs, mass vaccines, health care education and health care for senior citizens and veterans, which is a reflection of our country’s norms and values. These norms and values also explain many of the U.S foreign policies where we provide basic healthcare and food rations to third world nations and during natural disasters.…

Why We Should Be Free

There are many things that should be free. If we are talking material and assistance that should be free I think clean drinking water, healthy foods, shelter, medicines, doctor's visits, therapists, etc. A few immaterial things that I think should be free would be knowledge as in maybe schooling and or colleges, love, happiness, trust, freedom, and creativity. If everyone had the right kind of medicines, mental health help, and medical treatment for free then less lives would be lost every single day. If everyone could have clean drinking water and healthy foods for free then less people would have weight and certain health problems.…

How Can Healthcare Be Free

On the other hand having free health care has its cons as well. Things like people who can 't afford it will be taken care of. Another is medical cost would be reduced so a patient wouldn’t have to worry about how long they stayed in the hospital adding up the bill cost once they…

Disadvantages Of Free Health Care

Free health care is known as a health care system that provides health care to all citizens of a particular country. According to the article “A Great Example of Why Everyone Should Have Health Coverage,” the author mentions that “Providing basic health care is the humane thing to do, and in the long run, it will be cost effective”(McClanahan, 2012). In fact, The World Health Organization(WHO) shows that 400 million people around the world do not have access to essential health services. However, in the debate over health care, some people believes that it is an inhuman action to turn away somebody who is in need of medical treatment simply because they don’t have enough money while other claimed that if health care is free, it will cause negative…

Related Topics

• Health care
• Health insurance
• Health economics
• Healthcare reform
• United States

Ready To Get Started?

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings

Reasons Why Healthcare Should Be Free

Many people argue whether healthcare should be free or a privilege. Because of all that is happening around the world right now with covid-19 this is a huge topic that should be discussed. Healthcare is not a privilege or an opportunity in fact it is essential for survival. It is a right that should not be taken from people. Financial issues should not be the reason why a human does not get the medical attention they need. Providing free healthcare to the public is not something that can be done easily and it would take a lot of financing and policies to make this fair to everyone but here are some reasons why it should be considered.

1. bankruptcy

Medical bills can be a huge problem in families because not only is healthcare not free but it is in fact very expensive. Many families struggle with this and cannot get the medical attention needed due to their financial situation. One of my closest friends' mom had melanoma and had to go through multiple surgeries. These bills became very expensive for them and to this day they are still paying them off and this affects the lifestyle they live now. When people are sick this makes them worry how they will possibly pay for the bills and often leaves them wondering whether they even have the option to get the treatment, so making healthcare free or at least more affordable would tremendously help these people to not go bankrupt after receiving medical care. Families should not have to choose between their health and paying their water and food bills.

2. Correct Care

When it comes to health and prescriptions it should come down to what is the best option for the patient. With healthcare being so expensive right now insurance companies are deciding what is best for the patients rather than what the doctor is prescribing. My friend's mom with the melanoma was getting surgeries and treatments based off of her billing plan through her insurance and did not fully get the proper care needed which led to complications in the end. Free healthcare would provide the patients with the doctors orders rather than insurance companies.

3. The Unemployed

The unemployed would especially benefit from free healthcare. Once again healthcare is a right and should not be taken away from people who are in hard times financially. There are so many homeless unemployed people on the streets with signs asking for help. I have seen pregnant women who are homeless and have signs asking for help. Pregnant women need lots of medical care and attention and these unemployed people cannot afford to go see a doctor and are not getting the proper care. Free healthcare would help these suffering women on the streets to protect their baby and have a healthy pregnancy.

4. It is a right

Healthcare is a fundamental human right. This should not be taken away from anyone because they are struggling financially. Having access to healthcare is something that is crucial to have stability in the world. When everyone has access to healthcare we are improving humanity and ending the suffering of many lives. We should ensure we are providing everyone with their appropriate needs including treatments and surgeries for diseases that cause suffering.

5. It can prevent the spreading of diseases

Affordable healthcare could tremendously decrease the spread of diseases and viruses. If everyone is getting treated the amount of people that would get the disease would be much lower. Sometimes when people get diseases they will look into the cost of the treatment and realize the treatment is out of their budget and will then deny the treatment. They will then go on with their life spreading the disease to others. If doctor visits and vaccinations and antibiotics were free the diseases would not travel as much and as often.

6. Equality

One thing that is really big in healthcare is the competition between health service providers. They compete for who gets the most patients and when looking at patients they care for the richest ones. They completely lose sight of what is important and instead focus on who is willing to and can afford to pay for the medical expenses rather than who needs the attention the most. Having free healthcare will ensure that all medical providers are practicing good ethics and are paying attention to the problem rather than the money.

7. Improving the economy

Providing free healthcare would have an enormous impact on the economy. Many people do not work because they have health conditions which they cannot afford to fix. A country with free healthcare would have a stronger economy than those with pricey healthcare. If people were able to get the attention they need to work this would improve their productivity which would then improve the economy. My aunt in Alabama has a bad knee but cannot afford surgery to get it fixed so she does not work. If she was able to afford the surgery she would be able to be more productive for the country and her family.

Overall there are many benefits to free healthcare. It would make our country a better place with a better economy and prevent the spread of diseases. Healthcare is a right that people deserve to obtain. It would make people feel a sense of equality and would help end suffering in many such as the homeless and middle and lower class people. It would be a long process and there would be alot of argumentation to put the right system in place but with all of the benefits that it would provide it is something that needs to be talked about and considered. One question that could help us look further into the problem is 'How does the expensive healthcare system affect different people?'.

**************************************************************

Word count: 972

Error count: 13

Error density: 2%

Persuasive Essay Example on Why Healthcare Should Not Be Free

Healthcare is a big issue in the U.S. and it affects many people that live there.  Most people think it should be provided by the government so people don’t have to worry about paying for it.  While everyone is so concerned about their lives no one even considers that healthcare being free would affect way too many lives to even count.  

Healthcare being free would overall just ruin the economy.  In order to even have healthcare there needs to be money to pay for all of the medical machines and tools to determine what is wrong with patients. Studies also show that “The all-payer system relies on an overall healthy population, as a greater prevalence of sick citizens will drain the “sickness fund” at a much faster rate”. Say someone comes in with an injury, the hospital won’t have the proper technology machines to actually tell what is wrong and how they can make it better.   If they can’t tell what is wrong with the patient then why is there even a hospital?  Also without patients paying for their care, which goes into the hospital they won’t be able to pay off the bills to keep the building open.  So basically without the right amount of money and income there will be no healthcare.  

Healthcare has been around since 1750 when it all started with hospitals.  Since then you have always had to pay for the care that you get because the people that help you put in hard work hours in their days just to keep you safe.  All of the healthcare facilities around the U.S. need people to work there.  That hasn’t changed since then.  If the employees are not going to get paid what they need then they would have no reason to be there.  Sure helping people is the point of their job but if they are not making money for their time and labor then they are not going to be able to pay off their own taxes and bills.  People work so that they can pay for what they need to live, including a house, food, water, clothes, etc.  If healthcare was free there would be no way to pay the doctors, nurses, receptionist, etc.  If they are not getting the salary they deserve and need to live then they would probably want to find a new job so they can provide for themselves and if they have families.  What are the healthcare facilities going to do if there is no one working there to help and care for people?  There wouldn’t be any hospitals or urgent cares with not enough  workers.  So at this point free healthcare would be useless to the country and the people in it. 

A lot of people can’t afford health care when they really need it and they would probably be homeless if they had to pay off their medical bills, but that is exactly what jobs are for.  I think I am right that Healthcare should not be free because there are so many employees and doctors that work so they can live. If healthcare is free the doctors and nurses won’t make enough money.  Why should the employees suffer because people can't afford to pay their bills. 

Overall free healthcare sounds nice, but when you think about the outcome and what will happen overtime it gets you thinking.  You can’t rely on the government for everything, sometimes you need to take responsibility and work for what you want.  Free healthcare is just going to make the country worse.  Life is not supposed to be easy and you're not supposed to get everything handed to you, there are going to be challenges and you need to work through those.  Why are we not thinking about others and what would happen to them?  We want to make the U.S. better, not worse, so make it better.

Related Samples

• Research Paper Example about Norovirus
• Smoking Should Be Banned Persuasive Essay Sample
• Vaping Should Be Illegal Argumentative Essay Sample
• Stress and Adaptation Essay Example
• Essay about Orthodontists and Dentists
• Why Canadians Need A National Pharmacare Program
• Research Paper Example: Medical Inequality Between Countries of the Developed, and Developing World
• Gene Therapy Essay Example
• Dissociative Identity Disorder Essay Sample
• Essay Sample on Teratogen Affects on Pregnancy

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Health Health Care

Why Healthcare Should Not Be Free

Table of contents, quality and accessibility: striking a balance, financial sustainability: the burden of costs, personal responsibility: encouraging accountability, incentives for medical innovation: sustaining progress.

• Rice, T., & Buchmueller, T. (2018). The Economics of Health Reconsidered (4th ed.). Health Administration Press.
• Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care. American Economic Review, 53(5), 941-973.
• Pauly, M. V. (2002). Should Medical Care be Rationed by Age? Medical Care Research and Review, 59(1_suppl), 31S-52S.
• Triggle, N., & New, B. (2016). UK Health Spending: Past, Present, Future. BMJ, 353, i2533.
• Feldstein, P. J. (2005). Health Care Economics (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Digestive System
• Fertility Rate
• Tobacco Use
• Cardiovascular System

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Share full article

‘What’s My Life Worth?’ The Big Business of Denying Medical Care

Supported by

Video by Alexander Stockton

Mr. Stockton is a producer with Opinion Video.

Should your insurance company be allowed to stop you from getting a treatment — even if your doctor says it’s necessary?

Doctors are often required to get insurance permission before providing medical care. This process is called prior authorization and it can be used by profit-seeking insurance companies to create intentional barriers between patients and the health care they need.

At best, it’s just a minor bureaucratic headache. At worst, people have died.

Prior authorization has been around for decades, but doctors say its use has increased in recent years and now rank it as one of the top issues in health care.

To produce the Opinion Video above, we spoke to more than 50 doctors and patients. They shared horror stories about a seemingly trivial process that inflicts enormous pain, on a daily basis. The video also explains how a process that is supposed to save money actually inflates U.S. health care costs while enriching insurance companies.

Prior authorization has come under intense scrutiny in Congress in the past few years, but bipartisan proposals have repeatedly stalled. Under public pressure, some insurance companies — like United Healthcare and Cigna — have said they would reduce the use of prior authorization. And in January, the Biden administration finalized a plan to put limited guardrails around this practice. But doctors say that these efforts only scratch the surface and should go further .

This issue is ultimately about the role of insurance companies in American health care: Should they have more power than your doctor to decide what’s medically best for you?

Opinion Video combines original reporting with creative storytelling to produce visually transformative commentary. Pitch a video Guest Essay here.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .

Alexander Stockton is a producer and editor with Opinion video. @ astocktonfilms

Advertisement