Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate.

Gabriel Zieff,Justin B Moore,Zachary Y Kerr,Lee Stoner

doi:10.3390/medicina56110580

Abstract

This commentary offers discussion on the pros and cons of universal healthcare in the United States. Disadvantages of universal healthcare include significant upfront costs and logistical challenges. On the other hand, universal healthcare may lead to a healthier populace, and thus, in the long-term, help to mitigate the economic costs of an unhealthy nation. In particular, substantial health disparities exist in the United States, with low socio–economic status segments of the population subject to decreased access to quality healthcare and increased risk of non-communicable chronic conditions such as obesity and type II diabetes, among other determinants of poor health. While the implementation of universal healthcare would be complicated and challenging, we argue that shifting from a market-based system to a universal healthcare system is necessary. Universal healthcare will better facilitate and encourage sustainable, preventive health practices and be more advantageous for the long-term public health and economy of the United States.

Highlights

Healthcare is one of the most significant socio–political topics in the United States (U.S.), and citizens currently rank “healthcare” as the most important issue when it comes to voting [1].The U.S has historically utilized a mixed public/private approach to healthcare
Universal healthcare in the U.S, which may or may not include private market-based options, offer several noteworthy advantages compared to exclusive systems with inequitable access to quality care including: (i) addressing the growing chronic disease crisis; (ii) mitigating the economic costs associated with said crisis; (iii) reducing the vast health disparities that exist between differing socio–economic status (SES)
Developmental and infrastructural contributions from multiple segments of society to a healthcare system may better encourage government accountability compared to a system in which a select group of private insurers and citizens are the only “stakeholders.” Coordinated efforts on various non-insurance-related fronts have focused on obesity, mental health, and physical activity [41]

Summary

Introduction

Healthcare is one of the most significant socio–political topics in the United States (U.S.), and citizens currently rank “healthcare” as the most important issue when it comes to voting [1]. Germany uses a multi-payer healthcare system in which subsidized health care is widely available for low-income citizens, yet private options—which provide the same quality and level of care as the subsidized option—are available to higher income individuals. While an in-depth analysis of each of these factors is beyond the scope of this commentary, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to purely private, market-based, and governmental, universal approaches to healthcare, as well as for policies that lie somewhere in-between. This opinion piece will highlight arguments for and against universal healthcare in the U.S, followed by the authors’ stance on this issue and concluding remarks

Argument against Universal Healthcare

Argument for Universal Healthcare

Conclusions

A Vision for Primary Care in the 21st Century

Findings

A Better-Quality Alternative