argumentative essay about health care should be free

Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America

Introduction, problem statement, why healthcare should be free, why healthcare should be paid, works cited.

The US government has historically taken a keen interest in the health of its citizens. As far back as the beginning of the 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt declared that “nothing can be more important to a state than its public health: the state’s paramount concern should be the health of its people” (Gallup and Newport 135). Despite these, the United States is classified as the nation with the most expensive, and yet inefficient, health care system among developed nations.

An expensive health care system translates to an increasing proportion of the population being unable to access the much needed medical care. The New York Times reports that according to census survey carried out in the year 2007, an estimated 45.6 million people in the USA were uninsured and hence unlikely to receive comprehensive medical care from hospitals (1). Due to the perceived inefficiencies, there has been agreement that the current health care system is faulty and therefore in need of radical changes to make it better.

Majority of American’s are greatly dissatisfied with the current health care system which is extremely expensive and highly inefficient. While an effective system can be deemed to be one which is efficient, acceptable and at the same time equitable, the current system is lacking in this attributes.

The aim of this paper will be to analyze the effects that free health care system in America would have. This paper will argue that a health care system which guarantees free health care for all Americans is the most effective system and the government should therefore adopt such a system.

Free health care would result in a healthier nation since people would visit the doctors when necessary and follow prescriptions. Research by Wisk et al. indicated that both middle and lower class families were suffering from the high cost of health care (1). Some families opted to avoid going to the doctor when a member of the family is sick due to the high cost of visiting the doctor and the insurance premiums associated with health care.

In the event that they go to the doctor, they do not follow prescriptions strictly so as to reduce cost. Brown reveals that “60 percent of uninsured people skipped taking dosages of their medication or went without it because it cost too much” (6). Such practices are detrimental to a person’s health and they cost more in the long run.

The last few years have been characterized by financial crises and recessions which have negatively affected the financial well being of many Americans. In these economic realities, the cost of health care has continued to rise to levels that are unaffordable to many Americans. This loss of access to health care has led to people being troubled and generally frustrated. A report by Brown indicates that the price for prescription drugs in the US has escalated therefore becoming a financial burden for the citizens (6).

The productivity of this people is thereby greatly decreased as they live in uncertainty as to the assurance of their health and thereby spend more time worrying instead of being engaged in meaningful activities that can lead the country into even greater heights of prosperity. Free health care would lead to a peace of mind and therefore enable people to be more productive.

Since medical care is not free, many people have to make do with curative care since they cannot afford to visit medical facilities for checkups or any other form of preventive medical care. This assertion is corroborated by Colliver who reveals that many people are opting to go without preventative care or screening tests that might prevent more serious health problems due to the expenses (1).

Research shows that approximately 18,000 adults die annually due to lack of timely medical intervention (The New York Times 1). This is mostly as a result of lack of a comprehensive insurance cover which means that the people cannot receive medical attention until the disease has progressed into advanced stages. This is what has made medical care so expensive since “sick patients need more care than relatively healthy ones” (Sutherland, Fisher, and Skinner 1227).

This is an opinion shared by Sebelius who reveals that 85% of medical costs incurred in the country arise from people ailing from chronic conditions (1). She further notes that if screened early, these diseases such as diabetes and obesity can be prevented thus saving the medical cost to be incurred in their treatment. It therefore makes sense to have a health care system that makes it possible for everyone to access preventive care thus curbing these conditions before they are fully blown.

While most people assume that free health care will result in better services as more people will be able to access health care, this is not the case. The increase in people who are eligible for health care will lead to an increase in the patients’ level meaning that one may have to wait for long before receiving care due to shortage of medical personnel or the rationing of care.

A European doctor, Crespo Alphonse, reveals that when health care is free, people start overusing it with negative implications for the entire system (AP). In addition to this, free health care would invariably lead to cost cutting strategies by hospitals.

This would lead to scenario where finding specialized care is hard and the rate of medical mistakes would increase significantly. As a matter of fact, a survey on Switzerland hospitals found that medical errors had jumped by 40% owing to the introduction of mandatory health insurance (AP). While it is true that free health care will increase the number of people visiting the doctor, this may be a positive thing since it will encourage preventive care as opposed to the current emphasis on curative care.

Free health care is a move towards a socialistic system. As it is, the US is a nation that is built on strong capitalistic grounds. This is against the strong capitalistic grounds on which the United States society is build on. While detractors of the private insurance firms are always quick to point out that the firms make billions of dollars from the public, they fail to consider the tax that these firms give back to the federal government (Singer 1).

Free health care would render players in the health industry such as private insurance companies unprofitable. Free health care will bring about a shift from a profit oriented system to a more people oriented system. Without money as a motivation, research efforts will plummet thereby leading to a decrease in the medical advancement as investment in research will not be as extensive (Singer 1).

The Associate Press reveals that doctors may also lack to be as motivated if they are no incentives and thereby the quality of their work may weaken (1). As such, a free health care system would have far reaching consequences for the economy of the nation since the health care industry is a profitable industry for many.

The Healthcare system is one of the most important components of the U.S. social system since full productivity cannot be achieved without good health. This paper has argued that a free health care system would be the most effective system for America. To reinforce this assertion, the paper has articulated the benefits that the country would accrue from free health care.

With free health care, all Americans would be able to access health services when they need it leading to increased quality of life. In addition, many people would make use of preventive healthcare services, therefore reducing the financial burden that the expensive curative services result in.

The paper has taken care to point out that free health care has some demerits, most notably of which is overloading the health services with a high number of patients. Even so, the observably advantages to be reaped from the system far outweigh the perceived risks. As it is, decades of reform on the US health care system have failed to provide any lasting solution to the problem.

Making health care free for all may be the strategy that will provide a solution for the ideal health care system that has thus far remained elusive. From the arguments presented in this paper, it can irrefutably be stated that free health care will result in a better health care system for the country.

Associate Press. (AP). Europe’s free health care has a hefty price tag . 2009. Web.

Brown, Paul. Paying the Price: The High Cost of Prescription Drugs for Uninsured Americans. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, 2006.

Colliver, Victoria. “Jump in middle-income Americans who go without health insurance,” San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate), 2006.

Gallup, Andrew, and Newport Francis. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion . Gallup Press, 2005. Print.

Sebelius, Kathleen. Health Insurance Reform Will Benefit All Americans . 2009. Web.

Singer, Peter. Why We Must Ration Health Care . 2009. Web.

Sutherland, Jason., Fisher Elliott, and Skinner Jonathan. “Getting Past Denial – The High Cost of Health Care in the United States” . New England Journal of Medicine 361;13, 2009).

The New York Times. The Uninsured . 2009. Web.

Wisk, Lauren. High Cost a Key Factor in Deciding to Forgo Health Care . 2011. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/

"Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

• Group Therapy as a Curative Factor - Psychology
• HIV, AIDS Health Determinants in Africa: The Research and Development in Curative and Preventive Medicare
• Healthcare Cost Reduction in Affordable Care Act
• Health Perspective in Public
• Utility Method for Distributing Healthcare Resources
• Prostate Cancer: Preventive Approaches and Treatment
• Group Psychotherapy Session Breakdown
• The US Healthcare Financing Concerns
• Hospice – Dying with Comfort and Dignity
• Importance of Health Systems and Health Equity
• Africa Regional Conference: Should Democracy Be Promoted in Africa?
• Why did Tunisia and Egypt’s governments fall? Will they become democracies?
• The Spread of Democracy
• Trustee vs. Delegate Models of Representation
• The United States Constitution

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

• The Importance Of Football Helmet For Concussions Protection
• Narrative Essay Sample about My Favorite Vacation
• Essay Sample on Voluntary Euthanasia
• Daycare Decisions for Infant Psychosocial Development
• Reflection Essay Sample on What is Perception?
• The Effect of Subjective Mental State on Memory Test Performance
• Essay Example about The Importance of Preventative Medicine
• The Importance Of Youth Work Essay Example
• Personal Goals Essay: Climbing Mount Everest
• Anemia in the Elderly Essay Sample

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• 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

📕 Studying HQ

120+ healthcare argumentative essay topics [+outline], dr. wilson mn.

• August 3, 2022
• Essay Topics and Ideas , Samples

If you’re a nursing student, then you know how important it is to choose Great Healthcare argumentative essay topics.

After all, your essay will be graded on both the content of your argument and how well you defend it. That’s why it’s so important to choose topics that you’re passionate about and that you can research thoroughly.

What You'll Learn

Strong Healthcare argumentative essay topics

To help you get started, here are some strong Healthcare argumentative essay topics to consider:

• Is there a nurse shortage in the United States? If so, what are the causes, and what can be done to mitigate it?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of various types of Nurse staffing models?
• What are the implications of the current opioid epidemic on nurses and patients?
• Are there any ethical considerations that should be taken into account when providing care to terminally ill patients?
• What are the most effective ways to prevent or treat healthcare-acquired infections?
• Should nurses be allowed to prescribe medication? If so, under what circumstances?
• How can nurses best advocate for their patients’ rights?
• What is the role of nurses in disaster relief efforts?
• The high cost of healthcare in the United States.
• The debate over whether or not healthcare is a human right.
• The role of the government in providing healthcare.
• The pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act.
• The impact of healthcare on the economy.
• The problem of access to healthcare in rural areas.
• The debate over single-payer healthcare in the United States.
• The pros and cons of private health insurance.
• The rising cost of prescription drugs in the United States.
• The use of medical marijuana in the United States.
• The debates over end-of-life care and assisted suicide in the United States.

As you continue,  thestudycorp.com  has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order  with us.

Controversial Healthcare topics

There is no shortage of controversial healthcare topics to write about. From the high cost of insurance to the debate over medical marijuana, there are plenty of issues to spark an interesting and thought-provoking argumentative essay.

Here are some Controversial healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started:

1. Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

2. Should the government do more to regulate the healthcare industry?

3. What is the best way to provide quality healthcare for all?

4. Should medical marijuana be legalized?

5. How can we control the rising cost of healthcare?

6. Should cloning be used for medical research?

7. Is it ethical to use stem cells from embryos?

8. How can we improve access to quality healthcare?

9. What are the implications of the Affordable Care Act?

10. What role should pharmaceutical companies play in healthcare?

11. The problems with the current healthcare system in the United States.

12. The need for reform of the healthcare system in the United States.

Great healthcare argumentative essay topics

Healthcare is a controversial and complex issue, and there are many different angles that you can take when writing an argumentative essay on the topic. Here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started:

1. Should the government provide free or low-cost healthcare to all citizens?

2. Is private healthcare better than public healthcare?

3. Should there be more regulation of the healthcare industry?

4. Are medical costs too high in the United States?

5. Should all Americans be required to have health insurance?

6. How can the rising cost of healthcare be controlled?

7. What is the best way to provide healthcare to aging Americans?

8. What role should the government play in controlling the cost of prescription drugs?

9. What impact will the Affordable Care Act have on the healthcare system in the United States?

Hot healthcare argumentative essay topics

Healthcare is always a hot-button issue. Whether it’s the Affordable Care Act, single-payer healthcare, or something else entirely, there’s always plenty to debate when it comes to healthcare. Here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to help get you started.

1. Is the Affordable Care Act working?

2. Should the government do more to provide healthcare for its citizens?

3. Should there be a single-payer healthcare system in the United States?

4. What are the pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act?

5. What impact has the Affordable Care Act had on healthcare costs in the United States?

6. Is the Affordable Care Act sustainable in the long run?

7. What challenges does the Affordable Care Act face?

8. What are the potential solutions to the problems with the Affordable Care Act?

9. Is single-payer healthcare a good idea?

10. What are the pros and cons of single-payer healthcare?

Argumentative topics related to healthcare

Healthcare is always an ever-evolving issue. It’s one of those topics that everyone has an opinion on and is always eager to discuss . That’s why it makes for such a great topic for an argumentative essay . If you’re looking for some fresh ideas, here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started.

1. Is our healthcare system in need of a complete overhaul?

3. Are rising healthcare costs making it difficult for people to access care?

4. Is our current healthcare system sustainable in the long term?

5. Should we be doing more to prevent disease and promote wellness?

6. What role should the private sector play in providing healthcare?

7. What can be done to reduce the number of errors in our healthcare system?

8. How can we make sure that everyone has access to quality healthcare?

9. What can be done to improve communication and collaboration between different parts of the healthcare system?

10. How can we make sure that everyone has access to the care they need when they need it?

Argumentative essay topics about health

There are many different stakeholders in the healthcare debate, and each one has their own interests and perspectives. Here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started:

1. Who should pay for healthcare?

2. Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

3. What is the role of the government in healthcare?

4. Should there be limits on what treatments insurance companies must cover?

5. How can we improve access to healthcare?

6. What are the most effective methods of preventing disease?

7. How can we improve the quality of care in our hospitals?

8. What are the best ways to control costs in the healthcare system?

9. How can we ensure that everyone has access to basic care?

10. What are the ethical implications of rationing healthcare?

Medical argumentative essay topics

• Is healthcare a fundamental human right?

2. Should there be limits on medical research using human subjects?

3. Should marijuana be legalized for medicinal purposes?

4. Should the government do more to regulate the use of prescription drugs?

5. Is alternative medicine effective?

6. Are there benefits to using placebos in medical treatment?

7. Should cosmetic surgery be covered by health insurance?

8. Is it ethical to buy organs on the black market?

9. Are there risks associated with taking herbal supplements?

10. Is it morally wrong to end a pregnancy?

11. Should physician-assisted suicide be legal?

12. Is it ethical to test new medical treatments on animals?

13. Should people with terminal illnesses have the right to end their lives?

14. Is it morally wrong to sell organs for transplantation?

15. Are there benefits to using stem cells from embryos in medical research?

16. Is it ethical to use human beings in medical experiments?

17. Should the government do more to fund medical research into cancer treatments?

18. Are there risks associated with genetic engineering of humans?

19. Is it ethical to clones humans for the purpose

Argumentative essays on mental illness

• Should there be more focus on mental health in schools?
• Are our current treatments for mental illness effective?
• Are mental health disorders more common now than they were in the past?
• How does social media impact mental health?
• How does trauma impact mental health?
• What are the most effective treatments for PTSD?
• Is therapy an effective treatment for mental illness?
• What causes mental illness?
• How can we destigmatize mental illness?
• How can we better support those with mental illness?
• Should insurance companies cover mental health treatments?
• What are the most effective treatments for depression?
• Should medication be used to treat mental illness?
• What are the most effective treatments for anxiety disorders?
• What are the most effective treatments for OCD?
• What are the most effective treatments for eating disorders?
• What are the most effective treatments for bipolar disorder?
• How can we better support caregivers of those with mental illness?
• What role does stigma play in mental illness?

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Related Posts

• Term-Long Project Nursing Paper Example
• Case Study on Moral Status
• Applying the Concepts of Epidemiology and Nursing Research on Measles Nursing Paper Essay
• A Comprehensive Guide to Writing a Nursing Research Paper
• 50 Potential Research Summary Topics
• Free Essays
• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• How to Guides
• Essay Topics and Ideas
• Manage Orders
• Business StudyingHq
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

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.
• Phone 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

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
• 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.

IELTS Practice.Org

IELTS Practice Tests and Preparation Tips

• Sample Essays

Some people think basic healthcare should be free for everyone | IELTS essay sample

by Manjusha Nambiar · Published May 23, 2018 · Updated April 25, 2023

Some people think basic healthcare should be free for everyone. Others believe people should pay their own medical costs. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Here is an essay on this topic submitted by one of our students. Send us your writing samples for a free band score estimate or get a detailed analysis of your writing for a fee. 

Band 7.5 IELTS essay sample 1

It is undoubtedly true that adequate healthcare is of extreme importance in the life of a person. Some people think that it must be free of charge for everybody. Others, however, believe that it is the responsibility of an individual to bear the entire cost involved in availing themselves of medical treatments and facilities.

It can be argued that a citizen pays a hefty sum of money as tax and so, authorities must provide all the treatment free of cost. While this can be true to a certain extent, I am of the opinion that being responsible for one’s medical expenditure can perhaps make a person more conscious of their health.

The affluent sections of the society pay a huge amount of tax to the government. The modern workforce, particularly those working in the public sector pay this sum from their monthly salary. Since this money is collected from the people, the government should certainly use it to provide various public services. So it seems that the demand for making fundamental health care free of cost is reasonable / justifiable.

On the flip side, there is a strong argument in favour of making individuals responsible for their healthcare. Once a person pays the exorbitant prescription and treatment charges he becomes wary of the expenses involved in the process. As a result, he makes conscious efforts to keep himself fit and healthy. For instance, in India many people do regular exercise and yoga just to avoid the huge treatment charges. Additionally, when people are responsible for their medical expenses, more and more of them will want to lead a healthy lifestyle. Having said that, the government must step in to help those who cannot afford to pay their medical bills.

In conclusion, I am of the view that although we pay massive amount of money in the form of tax, paying for our own treatment definitely helps in keeping us healthy and fit.

Band 7.5 IELTS essay sample 2

While some people think that people ought to be provided with free medical care, other people believe that cost involved in the treatment should be paid by the people themselves. In my opinion, free healthcare is imperative for the overall development of a nation.

On the one hand, some people believe that free healthcare enables every person to live a healthy life and I agree with them. Despite advancements in medical science, there are many unprivileged people who lack basic health care. As these people cannot afford the guidance and treatment of a doctor at the right time, they end up in life threatening conditions. For instance, deep vein thrombosis in pregnant women may lead to amputation of leg if not provided with timely medical treatment. Free medical care protects / saves people from preventable diseases and medical conditions and this in turn makes people strong and healthy.

On the other hand, providing free medical treatment for all people will be a burden on the government. This is particularly true in the case of poor and developing nations that do not have a big budget. In this case, rather than offering free healthcare to all people, the government should provide the rich with the option to pay for their care. In India, for example, government hospitals provide free medical treatment and it is mainly accessed by poor people. The rich go to private hospitals where they pay for their treatment.

In conclusion, free healthcare is beneficial for a nation and hence governments should strive to provide it through state funded hospitals. At the same time, there should be private hospitals where rich people can receive paid health services. This way, the burden on public exchequer can be reduced and the poor will still receive timely care.

Need help with writing? Hire professional paper writers here.

Quick Links

• IELTS Mock Test
• Band 7 Essay Samples
• Band 8 Essay Samples

Band 9 Essay Samples

Tags: ielts essay ielts essay sample model ielts essay

Manjusha Nambiar

Hi, I'm Manjusha. This is my blog where I give IELTS preparation tips.

• Next story  People say that a child’s success is dependent on the way parents bring them up | Band 9 IELTS Essay Sample
• Previous story  You borrowed an important textbook from a classmate last term | IELTS letter sample

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

IELTS Practice

IELTS Sample Test

Band 7.5 Essay Samples

• Band 7 essay samples

Band 9 letter samples

Band 7.5 IELTS letter samples

• Band 8 letter samples
• Band 7 letter samples

Academic IELTS Task 1 reports

Get Free Lessons In Your Inbox

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Author | Manjusha Nambiar

• Academic Writing Task 1
• Advantage Disadvantage Essays
• Advantages/Disadvantages Essays
• Agree Or Disagree
• Band 6 essay samples
• Band 9 IELTS Essays
• CELPIP Writing Samples
• Discuss Both Views
• Discussion Essays
• Grammar exercises
• IELTS Books
• ielts model essays
• IELTS Model Letters
• IELTS Questions
• ielts reading
• IELTS Writing
• Learn English
• OET Letters
• Positive or Negative Essays
• Problem Solution Essays
• PTE Academic Essays
• Sample Letters
• Sample Reports
• Students' Essays
• Uncategorized
• Writing Tips
• Discovering India
• English Grammar and Writing
• IELTS Writing Tips
• Learn Maths Online
• NCERT Guides

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

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

Autoimmune diseases that can be fatal.

Christine Comizio March 7, 2024

2024 Medicare Supplement Insurance

Elaine Hinzey and Paul Wynn Feb. 23, 2024

Does Medicare Cover Ozempic?

Paul Wynn Feb. 22, 2024

Medicare Costs to Expect

Elaine Hinzey and Elaine K. Howley Feb. 21, 2024

Does Medicare Cover SilverSneakers?

Elaine K. Howley Feb. 16, 2024

Medicare Grocery Allowance: What to Know

What Is Insulin and What Does Insulin Do?

Elaine K. Howley and Vanessa Caceres Feb. 16, 2024

Medicare vs. Medicare Advantage

David Levine and Paul Wynn Feb. 15, 2024

Physician Survey Gets Underway

Ben Harder Feb. 15, 2024

What Is a Medicare Flex Card?

Elaine K. Howley Feb. 14, 2024

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Health Care Reform — Should the Government Provide Free Health Care in America

Should The Government Provide Free Health Care in America

• Categories: American Government Health Care Reform

About this sample

Words: 1226 |

Published: Apr 17, 2023

Words: 1226 | Pages: 3 | 7 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

Dr Jacklynne

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

3 pages / 1453 words

2 pages / 1144 words

2 pages / 808 words

2 pages / 746 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 Health Care Reform

As a mental health nurse practitioner, I am passionate about helping individuals who are struggling with mental health issues. For as long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by the workings of the human mind and how it [...]

CNBC LCC (2010). The future of health care: Meeting of the minds. Web.Rambur, B. (2015). Health care finance, economics, and policy for nurses: A foundational guide. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.Van de Bovenkamp, H. [...]

Effective communication within the healthcare setting is crucial for providing quality care to patients. It involves not only the interaction between patients and physicians, but also includes other individuals within the [...]

Since I was a young child, my parents have always emphasized the importance of dental hygiene. Brushing twice a day, flossing daily, and visiting the dentist regularly were standard practices in our household. As I grew older, I [...]

We all know going to the doctor’s sucks. Paying that $20 at front is your least favorite thing. Someone doesn't want to get the best pill, or the best surgery because of the prices. They think universal health care will help [...]

My task was to write a research-based argumentative essay for or against health care for everyone, so I chose the side “for” implementing affordable health care policy. The topic of healthcare has been a recurrent political [...]

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

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

• Essay Sample: Drug and Alcohol Addiction Does Not Happen to Just “Bad” People
• Compare and Contrast Essay Example: Autism vs. Down Syndrome
• Types of Eating Disorders Essay Sample
• Positive Impact of Getting Sufficient Sleep and Working on a Stable Circadian Rhythm in Everyday Life (Essay Example)
• The Importance of Healthy Living and Exercise Essay Sample
• Importance of Nutrition and Eating Right Essay Sample
• Violent Video Games Essay Example
• Essay Sample about Health Consciousness Scale (HCS) and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (MHLC)
• Understanding Bipolar and Depression Disorder Essay Example
• Personal Narrative Essay: The Importance Of Nursing Skills

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Home / Essay Samples / Health / Health Care Policy / Healthcare: a Right or a Privilege

Healthcare: a Right or a Privilege

• Category: Government , Health
• Topic: Affordable Care Act , Health Care Policy , Medicare

Pages: 2 (967 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Drug Abuse Essays

Marijuana Essays

Drunk Driving Essays

Drugs Essays

Smoking Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

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

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->