Universal Healthcare Coverage

Universal healthcare coverage is an issue that has divided the socio-political structure of the United States for decades, and continues to polarize the electorate in the upcoming election. Proponents argue that healthcare is a universal human right that should not just be readily available, but provided as an entitlement from the government to the population. Opponents provide counterarguments that private, free market coverage is superior to the government-funded option and lowers costs to create a better system for all. The polarization and dissension about the issue demonstrates the importance of the question: should the government provide universal healthcare coverage for its population? To better understand the issue, one must clearly define what universal healthcare coverage entails. Much like universal suffrage, the term universal implies that healthcare coverage is a concept that no matter their race, gender, or income level, all people deserve healthcare coverage. This is in contrast to mere availability on the private market because the government provides it at public taxpayer expense. The interchangeable terms "single-payer" and "Medicare for all" are the most prevalent topics in the contemporary discussion and mean that a single government organization provides public coverage, but private physicians and organizations administer services. The terms "Obamacare" and "ACA" refer to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that mandated health insurance coverage through a private marketplace subsidized by the government. The primary argument by proponents of universal healthcare coverage is that healthcare is an unalienable right that should be provided by a civilized society and not infringed upon. This pathological appeal is not just pure altruistic emotion, however. Researchers from Harvard University found that as of 2009, lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year with senior citizens facing more problems due …show more content…
Research shows that the most prevalent are medically related bankruptcies and collection agencies. According to experts from the American Journal of Medicine, around 62% of all bankruptcies in the US were related to medical expenses that exceeded their means to pay. The long-term effects of bankruptcy are catastrophic for financial health and include denial of home mortgages, car notes, and in some cases losing a job. The most telling problem in this research is that many of those bankruptcies filed were from people that already had health insurance but the company didn 't cover all of their necessary expenses. Proponents contend that by providing public universal healthcare coverage, medical bankruptcies and collections would be alleviated due to expenses being covered by the …show more content…
They cite the inefficiency in many countries with universal healthcare coverage that lead to many diseases going untreated due to long wait times. According to researchers from the Fraser Institute, the average wait time to see a medical specialist in Canada was 8 weeks in 2013 compared to a mere 18.5 days in the U.S. In addition to the international outlook, opponents discuss the U.S. Medicaid program and according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 9.4% of Medicaid recipients had trouble receiving treatment compared to 4.2% of those with private insurance coverage. These arguments were often referenced during the debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by arguing that government entities would preside over death panels that due to the inefficiency of bureaucracy and the subsequent wait times and judgments, could lead to a lack of treatment and wait times for fatal