Introduction
Universal healthcare is a system that provides quality healthcare to all citizens. The federal government offers it to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. The high cost of providing quality healthcare makes universal healthcare a significant challenge for governments.
Most universal health care is funded by general income or payroll taxes. The United States is one of the 33 developed countries without universal health care. However, the healthcare system has specific components, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provide universal healthcare for specific populations.
Economic and Administrative Benefits of Universal Healthcare
Universal healthcare has many benefits; it lowers the overall cost of healthcare, as the government controls prices through negotiation and regulation. Moreover, the system reduces administrative costs, as doctors work exclusively for one government agency. For example, American doctors spend four times as much as Canadians working with insurance companies.
Thanks to the universal model, hospitals and doctors are forced to offer the same standard of care at a low cost. In a competitive environment like the United States, healthcare providers must also focus on profit. They achieve this by offering the latest technology, providing premium services, compensating doctors more generously, and attempting to compete by targeting affluent individuals.
Universal healthcare creates a healthier workforce: research shows that preventive care reduces the need for expensive emergency room visits. Without access to preventive care, 46% of emergency room patients left because they had no other place (Shi and Singh 28). They used the emergency room as a family doctor. This disparity in healthcare is a significant contributor to rising healthcare costs. Early childhood care helps prevent future social costs, including crime, welfare dependency, and health problems. Health education teaches families how to live healthy lives and prevent chronic illness.
Finally, through this model, governments can impose regulations and taxes to guide people toward healthier choices: regulations make unhealthy choices, such as the use of drugs, illegal. Taxes on unhealthy products, such as taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, make them more expensive. As a result, 67.2% of Americans have private health insurance, primarily provided by their employers (Glassman et al. 55). The government subsidizes private health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Another 37.7% of Americans have government insurance (Glassman et al. 46). This includes Medicaid, Medicare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and military insurance, as well as the Veterans Administration.
All healthcare providers except the VA are private; many Democratic candidates are pushing for universal healthcare, known as Medicaid for All. In 2018, healthcare costs 16.9% of the GDP. This was a staggering $10,586 per person (Glassman et al. 67). About 28% of patients reported waiting more than four weeks to see a specialist. This is similar to Germany and Switzerland (Glassman et al. 46).
Despite these costs, the quality of medical care in other areas is lower than in comparable developed countries. The infant mortality rate was 5.6%, almost double that of Australia and Germany (Shi and Singh 24). The third leading cause of death was a medical error.
Current Structure and Performance of the U.S. Healthcare System
Based on the above statistics, one can assume that the transition to universal health care may improve the situation and bring the U.S. in line with the performance of other countries. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why this system has not been implemented in this country.
U.S. health care eats up about 17 percent of GDP, more than the wealthiest countries in Europe in this regard: in France, it is 11 percent; in Switzerland, 11.5 percent; and in Great Britain, 9.8 percent(Glassman et al. 54). About two-thirds of this spending (64.3% in 2013) falls on government programs for the poor and elderly. To make matters worse, only half of the employed are insured at their place of work, and this share has been falling steadily, dropping from 69% in 1978 to 53% by 2010 (Shi and Singh 23). As a result, approximately 15% of the U.S. population lacks health insurance coverage (Shi and Singh 24).
Under these conditions in the universal education model, doctors have more incentive to cut healthcare if governments poorly compensate them to reduce costs. For example, doctors report that cuts in Medicare payments will force them to close many in-house blood testing labs. Thus, it appears that healthcare coverage for patients will be reduced to a minimum. The government lacks the resources to rebuild the system or even restore it to its previous state.
Economic, Political, and Institutional Barriers to Universal Healthcare
One important reason for this is America’s unique political culture. As a country born of enterprising immigrants without a feudal system imposing a rigid social structure, Americans are prone to individualism. These protesters demonstrate their feelings about big government. In other words, Americans, especially conservatives, are strong advocates of classical liberalism and the notion that government should play a limited role in society. Given that it contradicts this belief, it is perhaps not surprising that it has not been introduced in the United States, despite its presence in other countries (Shi and Singh 74).
Public opinion certainly supports this idea. A survey conducted by the International Social Research Program revealed that fewer Americans believe caring for the sick is a national responsibility than citizens in other developed countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden.
The third reason the United States lacks a universal healthcare system, and why the 2016 candidates avoided the topic altogether, is that the U.S. political system makes it challenging to adopt large-scale social welfare programs. As health policy experts have noted, a comprehensive national healthcare system is hindered by the structural opposition of political institutions to such reform. The political system is subject to inertia, and any attempt at comprehensive reform must navigate a complex process involving numerous congressional committees, budget assessments, amendments, and potential obstacles. Yet opponents of reform have publicly criticized the bill.
Ultimately, the United States is one of the few industrialized countries without a comprehensive national healthcare system, and it is unlikely to be addressed by the next president, as America is exceptional in many ways. Its culture is highly individualistic, with individual responsibility as a top priority. Lobbyists, in particular, spend billions of dollars to ensure that private insurance companies keep their healthcare systems intact. Our institutions are designed to limit the possibility of significant changes in social policy. As long as these facts persist, there is no reason to expect widespread awareness in America anytime soon, regardless of who becomes president.
Conclusion
Thus, for universal healthcare to work, everyone, including healthy individuals, must pay premiums or additional taxes to cover healthcare costs. This finances a ceiling on security for all citizens. Ideally, everyone with a government-regulated healthcare system should have access to quality care at an affordable cost. Such a system would provide affordable preventive care and strict controls on the price and quality of drugs and medical services.
U.S. health care is not as comprehensive as that in other developed countries. Instead, there are different models for the target audience. Obamacare is the closest the United States has ever come to implementing universality, but it falls short due to numerous exceptions.
Works Cited
Glassman, Amanda, et al. What’s In, What’s out: Designing Benefits for Universal Health Coverage. Brookings Institution Press, 2017.
Shi, Leiyu, and Douglas A. Singh. Essentials of the U.S. Health Care System. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2017.