Medical Coverage for All
Abdullah Alsaleh, Anna Aluia, Ashleigh Allen,
Caylee Arnold, Abbas Abdallah, Joseph Altizer, Sylvester Anthony
Wayne State University, Detroit MI
PS 1010_1809_005
Instructor: Rochelle Allen
Date: Tuesday, November 13th
Everybody experiences some kind of health issue at one point in their life, be it small or big. Some people might say that receiving treatment is a god given right and something every person that is alive is entitled to, but that statement has more to it than one might think. Unlike places like Canada, Kuwait, and Sweden, the united states do not provide its citizens with free healthcare. In order to be treated, you have to either pay the medical provider directly or pay an insurance company even before anything bad happens, either way, money is involved. This puts a lot of people at a disadvantage. Some people may even have to weigh their options between buying food and paying their medical bills. No human should live like that, and every health issue, from the simple flu to more serious illnesses like cancer, should be treated and paid for by the government. Free healthcare is a highly debated subject, and in this essay, we will be discussing a viable option, some supporting and opposing arguments and how we think it could be paid for.
Medical coverage for all is a type comprehensive national health care program which would give health insurance to all citizens residing in the country. A variety of programs have been proposed in recent years on how this program would work, most often referred to as Medicare for all. Senator Bernie Sanders is a large presence in the promotion of such a program has proposed Bill S. 1804 in 2017 which states “every individual who is a resident of the United States is entitled to benefits for health care services under this Act” ( S. 1804, 2017).
Most programs that are proposed are meant as a single-payer health insurance, which would be a national government-run program that would cover every American and replace the private coverage currently in place entirely. Many other countries already have such programs, such as some European countries and Canada, with some criticism. Other programs proposed would allow people to maintain their private insurance, but give Americans the option to opt-into Medicare (Vox, 2018, pg 3). Much debate exists in the United States on whether medical coverage for all is feasible or if the Federal government should even be responsible for providing health insurance.
A crucial argument supporting why we as a nation should have universal healthcare is that the documents our country was founded on allude to healthcare as a right. The Declaration of Independence asserts that all citizens of the United States have unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order to live a healthy life from birth until death, healthcare is necessary. If someone has to choose between medical expenses and eating dinner they are neglected of these rights. How can anyone maintain good health or pursue a healthy, happy life when their “right to life” is dependent on money that so many Americans don’t have? Even the Preamble of the Constitution mentions promoting the general welfare of individuals. Again, this reiterates the idea that what our nation promotes isn’t necessarily what every individual in the United States receives. However, this shouldn’t be the case, especially when dealing with something as important as health. Aside from the fact that healthcare is a right, its purpose is to help those who are not in good health and bring them to better health. With that said, shouldn’t we as a nation do everything in our power to prevent individuals from their medical needs being neglected? Statistics show that 44,789 deaths a year are attributed to a lack of healthcare. That means that every day over a hundred people die because they can’t afford to maintain their health. Adding to this, statistics also show that people who live in the United States generally live two to three years shorter than people who live in countries where healthcare is a right, such as Italy, Spain, and France.
With the recent rise in health care costs across the country, we are slowly going more into debt as a nation. However, a solution to this problem would be to install a universal health care system for all Americans. By implementing a universal health care system, we would be able to save about $1.7 trillion. This is because our current system is very restrictive and limits certain benefits to medical coverage whereas a universal health care would be less restrictive, ultimately saving more money. Another reason is that the government has little to no control over this, so businesses have full control of money causing an inflation in prices. If the government stepped in, it would allow more regulation on health care costs, saving even more money (Ireland, 2017). Having a universal health care system would also allow the government to impose regulations on unhealthy choices. By doing so, it would make unhealthy things such as drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, and candy more expensive and harder to access. Another advantage to universal health care is the elimination of the current and more complicated health care providers. Some businesses don’t accept certain forms of health care so patients are either forced to pay out of pocket or go somewhere else. By eliminating these other providers and switching to a universal health care system, it is easier for physicians to give these patients the proper care they need without any confusion or complications in the paperwork process (Amadeo).
The greatest argument against providing universal healthcare is that we live in a capitalist society where every aspect of life is given a price based on supply and demand. If a person desires a good or service, he or she will allocate a portion of their income toward obtaining what they want. If a person feels that the price for their good or service exceeds that which they are willing to pay, they will look elsewhere. Over time, through supply and demand, prices will adjust, and markets will settle. This same rationale applies to health care services as well. If a person is ill, they will spend money to receive treatment. However, since the medical industry has faced exponential increases in prices, the market has produced insurance companies that help lower the cost of healthcare. If a person wants healthcare, they pay for insurance and receive a lower medical bill. Since there are multiple healthcare providers, various companies will complete gaining more customers leading to lower premiums (Goddard). This method follows basic economics and offers insurance to those who need it without bothering those who do not want it. This, in turn, saves taxpayers money. However, although this form of basic economics makes sense in theory, it fails in application. Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck without the ability to cover premiums and copays. A universal healthcare system that involves all citizens serves as a government social service that helps those who are less fortunate. Initiatives like this are not unprecedented. Food stamps and social security follow a similar pattern.
To determine how the United States could fund universal healthcare, it was important to look at model countries who already have great universal healthcare plans in place that are high functioning with a content and healthy population. France has the best healthcare system and the closest system to the United States, this may make implementation simpler in the future. In learning about the French healthcare system, the major difference between France and the United States is that the government seems more actively involved in French healthcare (keeping costs low and big medical companies out of the picture). For example, like the US, France utilizes both private insurance groups and government insurance. Unlike the US, however, French government insurance covers roughly 70% of a doctor visit and the remaining 30% is supplemented by the patient’s private insurance company, generally provided to them by their employer. Now here is a major point of deviation between the two systems. French citizens who are employed, are required to pay “21% of their income into the national healthcare system.” This may sound shocking to United State citizens, but on average, US citizens spend more on healthcare when factoring insurance costs and high out-of-pocket costs for doctors, medicine, and hospitals. The simple solution would be to take the hefty 21% out of US paychecks to fund a high-functioning and effective universal health care system and do away elevated insurance rates and high out-of-pocket healthcare costs in the US (Shapiro, 2008). Another model country is Finland. Finland was able to make healthcare free due to a modest tax hike that would cover everyone, but shooting up tax prices is not such a simple solution in the United States compared to some normal countries. Americans health-care sector eats up about 17% of GDP. That is almost 5 points greater than Switzerland (Cooper, 2018). The best option for the U.S would be trying to cut costs. Keeping the tax increase modest and also slow the wrath of the medical lobby. First thing for a Medicare-for-all bill will be to cut administration spending (Cooper. 2018). Now going for the Canadian level for would be a pretty good goal to start; which is very similar to the U.S. “2015 figures for consistency, getting down to 3% saves about $160 billion (5% of $3.2 trillion) a year” (Cooper, 2018). Lowering prices on drugs would be the next step, but would not be so easy. “As Japan's medical price regulator does, you simply survey the drug market and set prices given an overall budget of (let's say) $725 per person. That's still on the high side among rich countries” (Cooper, 2018). Lowering drug prices will be very tough to do and drugs are in the market are pretty expensive. 84% of U.S. drugs are even generics compared to anything else.
Medical coverage for all is something needed in America. As mentioned before, healthcare is one of the main reasons that someone is living a long healthy life, but if people can’t afford the health care that they need that basically means they are stripped from one of their rights. Universal health care system is a great investment which it saves a huge amount of money, and help those who are less fortunate to receive good health care. Following the closest health care system, which is the French Universal health care system, would be one of the many solutions for the expensive health care issue. Universal health care is a highly debated subject but with great minds and well functioning plans, this issue can be solved.
References
Amadeo, K. (2018, October 10). Why America Is the Only Rich Country Without Universal Health Care. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211
BARBOUR, C. (2017). KEEPING THE REPUBLIC: Power and citizenship in american politics (8th ed.). S.l.: CQ PRESS.
Goddard, M. (2015, September). Competition in Healthcare: Good, Bad or Ugly? Retrieved October 09, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556571/
Ireland, K. (2017, August 14). Pros & Cons of Free Universal Health Care. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from https://www.livestrong.com/article/30692-pros-cons-universal-health/
‘Medicare for All Act of 2017’, S. 1804, 115th Congress. (2017), from https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s1804/BILLS-115s1804is.pdf
Scott, D. (2018, July 02). The "pleasant ambiguity" of Medicare-for-all in 2018, explained. Retrieved October 11, 2018, from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ 2018/7/2/17468448/medicare-for-all-single-payer-health-care-2018-elections
Shapiro, Joseph. (July 11, 2008). Health care lessons from France. October 9, 2018. NPR, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273