Universal health care is a term that is used in reference to a government policy and system that is intended to makes sure that every member of the population - specifically all the citizens of the country- have unlimited and affordable access to appropriate or rather needed health care services. The concept of the universal healthcare in the united states of American and its proposed introduction has attracted quite some unprecedented controversy and heated debate with strong opponents and proponents. This paper reviews the pros and cons of the universal health care.
The proponents of the introduction of the universal health care in the United States have argued that the health system would go a long way in ensuring that all the American citizens have access to much improved and quality health care services, irrespective of their social class or their economic status (Bobbie,2009, Para 5). Ideally, those who are for the introduction of the universal health care states that relative to the current American health care in which close to 40% of the American citizens lack health insurance, and which has limited accessibility as well as affordability of healthcare among the American citizens, universal health care would lower the per capita cost of American on health costs, significantly reduce infant mortality, and increase the life expectancy of the American people. According to John & Justine (2009, Para 7), Countries with universal healthcare plans characterized by experience significantly lower infant mortality rates, high life expectancy, and much lower per capita healthcare cost compared to America. The latter asserts that universal health care plan has the potential of greatly improving the overall health status of a region or country particularly due to its high capability of averting scourges
However, those opposing the universal health care plan have however said that the plan which is to be funded solely through the public fund would be overburdening to the taxpayer since they will be forced to fund unified and costly health care for all. Under the universal health care every citizen irrespective of his or her ability to pay taxes will receive universal Medicare a fact that make its opponents argue that it is ideally unfair to that taxpayers (John & Justine, 2009, Para 8),
According toScott (2009 Para 9), the universals health care plan poses a potential of introducing states monopoly in the provision of health care services. In argument for liberalized medical care, the opponents of the universal health care argues that the latter would result in government barricading the private sector from providing health care services thus limiting the choice of the American people, a factor that may lower the quality. Specifically, the latter posed an argument that existence of free markets in provision of health care services would lead to increased quality and cost control due to competitions, innovations and inventions. Scott points out that under the normal market forces competition, increased innovations, and inventions lead to better quality and lower cost of services provided and the health sector is no exception.
Bobbie (2009, Para 5) asserts that universal health care fails in entrenching health care responsibility among the people; the latter of which is the basis of success. According to Bobbie, while the government provided health care system can only make recommendations to citizen to stop smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy foods, it fall short of ability to entrench the culture of health responsibility in the people. Ideally, Bobbie points out that universal health care only expand government and curtail the freedom if their citizen freedoms as far as health care services are concerned. In addition, he argues that such a plan would be burdening and unfair to the working since they would be forced to pay for health services for non working and also those who are not willing to work by choice.