Ketcham Lacey Ketcham Dr.

Guenzel ENC 1102-0002 18 April 2013 Free Universal Healthcare in America Most Americans of at least voting age and above know about the infamous healthcare debate occurring in our country at this point in time. It is one of the most debated subjects in politics today and has been for a few years now. Many citizens are without health insurance

mainly because they cannot afford it. Those who can afford it, spend more on it (per person) than food and housing put together (Messerli 1). Currently, 32 million citizens (excluding immigrants) are without health insurance (Jackson 1). Universal healthcare could drastically lower this number. But what exactly defines free universal healthcare? What are the potential cons and benefits of utilizing such a policy in which all American citizens receive this type of medical care? What other countries have this policy and how do they make it work? I have done extensive research on all of these questions and believe overall, free universal healthcare would definitely benefit America in many different aspects. If the United States were to enact a free healthcare bill, what exactly would it entail? According to the Key Principles of Universal Healthcare (Key Principles 2), first and foremost, Americans would have access to this healthcare at any time and would not have to worry about the cost of a doctors visit no matter how severe the ailment. It would be universal and every legal citizen in the country would be covered by it. It would be considered continuous and ailments needing prolonged treatments would not be interrupted. It would be affordable for individuals as well as families. Since this healthcare would be partly paid for by higher taxes,

Ketcham financial assistance for low-income households would be provided. It would be affordable and sustainable, including cost-effective services. Finally, the most important aspect to everyone: it would enhance the wellbeing of everyone covered providing medical necessities such as health screenings and prescription drugs. However, this is considered the ideal healthcare plan and if something similar were to pass, it may not meet all of the requirements stated. As there are two sides to every story, there are two sides to every debate, especially in political debates. Joe Messerli, the creator of BalancedPolitics.org, has compiled two lists: one

containing the pros of universal healthcare, and one containing the cons as well as his reasonings behind them. Healthcare has recently become increasingly more expensive and therefore, unaffordable for many small businesses. As inflation rates increase, their labor budget decreases, leaving less money to spend on new hires, current employee raises, etc. As for individuals who can barely afford their present health insurance, they are left with less money to spend on rent, food, and other goods. This means less money is going back into the economy in the end. The whole process is a large-scale contradiction. Messerli notes that health care [is preventing] the country from making a robust economic recovery (1). Those thinking of starting a business or even just wanting to work part-time in order to spend time with their young children or otherwise would find these things easier to do financially if their health insurance was covered. Many full-time employees are afraid of losing their jobs because they would also lose their health insurance benefits. This universal healthcare would allow them to take advantage of the opportunity to work part-time while pursuing other life dreams and goals. Another great benefit that could come from this healthcare is the production of a centralized medical diagnostic database for doctors. It would be easier for doctors everywhere to

Ketcham diagnose a patient based on their correct personal record and in theory, doctors would focus less

on how a patient will be paying and more on the physical and mental health of his or her patient. Probably one of the most talked about subjects in the healthcare debate is the subject of pre-existing conditions, such as cancer or diabetes, and whether or not they will be covered. Today, many insurance companies will absolutely not cover these expenses. Many face the decision of either spending all of their out-of-pocket money or leaving their condition untreated. With the universal healthcare system, no one would be denied coverage. Messerlis list of cons was as numerous as was his list of benefits. He somewhat cynically points out that not one government division runs efficiently, so how would a healthcare agency be any different? The government would essentially pay for this universal healthcare. But where would it get this money? From higher taxes as well as spending cuts in other important divisions, such as education and defense. Messerli argues that we might as well pay for our monthly healthcare expenses rather than pay increased taxes, as they are both high expenses. Corruption could also become newly prevalent in the healthcare industry. Just as many other government-run industries have and have a history of back-room dealing (1), the health care industry could be just as susceptible. Malpractice lawsuits, which are already moderately high, may rise even more since the government would be liable in legal cases which may in turn, motivate people to create more lawsuits against more doctors, resulting in major losses in government funding. A major point of which many most likely sympathize with even if they do agree universal healthcare is what is best for the country, is the fact that those who are in fairly good health who exercise regularly, diet properly, and do not smoke would have to essentially pay for others who

Ketcham are not in such good health, who may be obese, smoke, etc. Messerli considers it a burden (1) and many would probably agree. Regardless of the cons, there is also living proof that universal healthcare does work and

can run smoothly. Australia has only one national insurance provider, Medicare. In America, this is the federal healthcare system for citizens 65 and older (What is Medicare? 1). This plan, in Australia however, through the National Health Act of 1953, provides all citizens, even residents on a temporary visa with coverage in many different areas. For example, all public hospital care is provided free. The Australian governmentalso funds a wide range of other health services, including population health, mental health, limited dental services, rural and indigenous health programs, and health services for war veterans (The Australian Healthcare System 1). The costs are covered by general taxation as well as private payments. Although I could not find a firsthand account from a citizen in Australia, I did find one from a citizen in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, they also have universal healthcare and live under the same or similar policies as Australia. Kathy Lavidge, long time UK resident, states that universal healthcare is a right in the UK: You will be treated the same way whether you are working for a corporation or are a self-employed dance teacher; whether you are retired, or have just been made redundant. In England, if you need healthcare, you get it -- at no cost. (Lavidge 1). She mainly talks about the things she never has to worry about: hospital bills, staying in a job you hate just to have coverage, pre-existing conditions, etc. She says that, in general, universal healthcare alleviates all of her anxieties and makes her quality of life better in this way. Of course there are also countries in which universal healthcare did not work as well. Russias Constitution protects citizens right to universal healthcare. But, according to Michael F. Cannon, Russia spends less than 4 percent of its meager GDP on health care, therefore free

Ketcham health protection for everyone is an impressive feat (1). He also states that half of Russias hospitals lack heat and running water. Russian medical care ended up corrupt and illconceived. President Obamas $634 billion healthcare bill proposal is the subject of many a heated

debate. Former President Clinton had a similar universal healthcare plan shot down in the time of his presidency. Obamas main goals are to lower healthcare costs and improve the quality of life for those with healthcare coverage through their jobs by providing them with portable coverage (Amadeo 1), meaning they will be covered even when temporarily unemployed or when switching jobs. Many that are in favor of the bill would like it to pass but are unsure of what exactly it will cost to reform the entire healthcare system. The president feels like this is the best route for Americans, even if some disagree with some of his stances. However, I argue that in general, a form of universal healthcare could benefit the United States in a plethora of ways. Everyone, regardless of income, should have the right to healthcare whenever needed. One human life is not better than another and should not be treated as such. Even a small step in this direction could eventually lead to leaps and bounds in new healthcare policies and maybe even produce a solution of compromise in which everyone can be satisfied with.

Ketcham Works Cited Cannon, Michael F. How Russia Makes Universal Coverage Work. Cato.org. Cato Institute, 21 Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. Jackson, Jill, and John Nolen. Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At Whats in the Bill. CBS News. CBS News, 21 Mar. 2013. Key Principles of Universal Healthcare. Center for Public Health and Health Policy. University of Connecticut, 2006. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. Lavidge, Kathy. Does Universal Healthcare Make Everyones Life Better? Yale.edu. Yale Insights, Apr. 2008. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. Messerli, Joe. Should the Government Provide Free Universal Healthcare for All Americans? BalancedPolitics.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. The Australian Healthcare System, 2011. International Profiles of Healthcare Systems. The Commonwealth Fund, 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. What is Medicare? Medicare.gov. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.