Is healthcare a basic human need that should be guaranteed free of cost?

      Universal healthcare has been a controversial subject; however, it is important to understand the different points of views regarding the subject. One side argues that universal healthcare should in fact be guaranteed free of cost given that it is a basic human right. There are thousands of American citizens that can’t afford to pay a large medical bill and although insurance is an option, it is not always cheap. Universal healthcare would ensure that thousands of Americans get the proper care without being financially stressed. According to Zieff, Universal healthcare should not be thought of as a privilege where only those that can afford it have access to it (1). Providing universal healthcare to American citizens would also ensure the improvement of public health, equality among those seeking care, knowledge against illnesses and the early prevention of many health issues.  On the other hands, the opposing side argues that although Universal healthcare is in fact a basic human right, it should not be guaranteed free of cost. Gaining access to universal healthcare would be a challenge for the economic system in the United States. To fund such program, there would have to be an increase on taxes. This could cause a handful of challenges for those in the working class already making ends meet with simple nine to five jobs. In addition, the opposing side also argues that if universal healthcare was guaranteed free of cost, it would increase taxes on workers. Yes, universal healthcare is a basic human right, however, there are things that should be taken into consideration before forming an opinion on the subject. 

                    Image from article "Universal healthcare pros & cons: A physician’s perspective"

Perspective #1: Healthcare is a basic human right and should be guaranteed free of cost

    According to Zieff, healthcare has both its advantages and disadvantages. First and foremost, providing universal healthcare to American citizens would guarantee Americans gaining knowledge about both health issues and obesity. For example, according to “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” there are around 55% of diabetics that are uninsured and are constantly visiting hospitals compared to those who are uninsured (Zieff et al. 2). If these thousands of American citizens had access to universal healthcare, there could have been more preventable measures taken. Those that have insurance don’t visit hospitals as often because they are given knowledge of pre-existing conditions and/or get proper care to maintain a good quality of life. Another example is obesity; this is one of the biggest issues in the United States especially those in the lower social economic status (SES). According to Zieff et al. “affordable healthcare may enable earlier intervention to prevent—or limit risk associated with—non-communicable chronic diseases, improve the overall public health of the U.S., and decrease the economic strain associated with an unhealthy low-SES”. In other words, affordable healthcare can help prevent health issues from worsening and potentially becoming irreversible when they are found in the earlier stages. Lastly, those in favor of free healthcare argue that people would have an equal opportunity when seeking medical help. In other words, citizens would not have to worry about whether they can get coverage based on their income and the insurance they have because they everyone would be treated as equals. Overall, health insurance can better the public health in both diseases and obesity, citizens would be more educated and would have more opportunities on finding the right care or treatment without worry. American citizens shouldn’t have to worry about medical bills especially when recovering from major treatments that don’t allow them to continue with their everyday life. We should be asking ourselves if having to choose between medical help and refusing medical treatment because of the cost is humane, not everyone has the same opportunities and financial stability to obtain health insurance. 

                          Image from article "Why the US Can Easily Afford Universal Healthcare"    

Perspective #2: Healthcare should not be guaranteed free of cost

   Healthcare is in fact a basic human right, however, according to Haislmaier and Hall, it should not be guaranteed free of cost. Guaranteeing free health care to American citizens sounds like a great idea at firsthand, however, this would create a lot of difficulties. First, granting people free healthcare would raise the tax money that employees pay to fund it. For some it may come easy, however, there are others who are struggling to make ends meet and raising taxes would only make it more difficult. According to How “Medicare for All” Harms Working Americans,” thousands of Americans would be financially unstable because there would need to be a raise in taxes of around 21.1 percent (Haislmaier and Hall 2). In other words. Universal healthcare would benefit thousands of Americans but impact thousands of others because they would be paying high percentages in taxes each year to fund the program. Some argue that paying for private insurance would be cheaper than there being an increase in taxes because the “average annual household disposable income would decline by $5,671 (or 11 percent) under a new government run health care program” (Haislmaier and Hall 2). There are thousands of Americans that would not benefit from such programs, for example, the middle and lower class would struggle and face challenges. Another thing the opposing side argues is the end of private or employer insurance services because there will no longer be a need for them (Haislmaier and Hall 8). Haislmaier and Hall also argue that universal healthcare would eliminate private and employed insurances because of the new program. For example, there are thousands of Americans who currently are insured by Medicaid which “pays for only about 65 percent of an enrollee’s total health expenses,” this is over half the medical bill (Haislmaier and Hall 7). However, “the House and the Senate bills would replace Medicare with a new government-run health program,” this would completely get rid of private and employed based insurance (7). Thousands of Americans would benefit from this happening especially those with Medicare because rather than paying a portion of the medical bill they would not paying anything.

Similarities and Differences 

    Universal Healthcare free of cost is a complicated topic to discuss because of the different opinions of those for the program and those against it. Those who are for free Universal Healthcare argue that it would not only benefit the people but also the United States because “they believe that “integration of services and systems of care (i.e., hospital, primary, public health), including preventive care that considers the long-term health and economy of a nation” because citizens would have the opportunity to seek medical help in time to prevent illnesses from worsening (Zieff et al. 2). On the other hand, the opposing side argues that free healthcare would financially hurt those in the working class regardless of wage increases rather than benefit them because of the increase in taxes. They argue that that “nearly two-thirds of American households (65.5 percent, comprising 73.5 percent of the population) would experience reductions in their disposable income, making them financially worse off,” the argument is that citizens wouldn’t benefit funding universal healthcare (Haislmaier and Hall 2).  While Zieff et al. argues that the public health and economy would increase in the long run, Haislmaier and Hall argue that there will be a lot of challenges in the beginning that would do more harm then help. 

However, there are similarities that both sides can agree on. One of the similarities is that Universal healthcare is a human right that should not be denied to anyone regardless of the income they make and how much their insurance can or can’t cover. Those in favor argue that insurance is expensive and access to free healthcare would “lessen costs associated with an uninsured and/or unhealthy population” because it would grant opportunities for those in the lower segments. On the other hand, those in the opposing side argue that although health insurance is expensive, “Americans currently covered by private health plans would be financially better off” than funding free healthcare because of the increase on taxes (Haislmaier and Hall 1).  Zieff et al as well as Haislmaier and Hall both agree that universal healthcare would in fact lessen the cost of medical bills. In other words, Americans would no longer have to deal with the financial stress after a hospital visit. Another similarity between both sides is that they can agree that there would be an increase in tax to fund this program. Zieff et. al share with their audience that “one proposal for universal healthcare recently pushed included options such as a 7.5% payroll tax plus a 4% income tax on all Americans,” regardless of the situation there will be an increase on taxes (4). However, Zieff et al. argue that although there is an increase on tax, citizens are going to be the ones who benefit by saving thousands of dollars in the future by taking preventive measures on both future and forming illnesses. On the other hand, Haislmaier and Hall make the same argument that there will be an increase on taxes. However, they argue that it won’t be worth it on the long run and citizens should continue to pay for private or employed insurance. They argue that the tax increase would be “to fund the cost of the new program because workers would need to replace their own private spending, replace non-workers’ private spending, and pay for the additional spending,” those who already have insurance would not profit from switching to free healthcare (3). Haislmaier and Hall are informing their audience that switching to universal healthcare will increase their taxes because they aren’t only paying for the funding but also for additional spending that may be needed. On the other hand, Zieff et al. disagree and believe that this will benefit Americans in the long run because thousands of dollars would be saved from illnesses that can be prevented before worsening. 

   Image from article "MEDICARE FOR ALL: HIGHER TAXES, FEWER CHOICES, LONGER LINES"

Strengths and Weaknesses 

    Each side of the argument towards free healthcare comes with strengths and weaknesses. Zieff et al. provide a well structure argument that explains both the advantages and disadvantages of free healthcare. They argue that people deserve to have access to healthcare without financial stress because it is a human right and not a privilege. Zieff et al. provide their audience with a strong argument that “the most striking advantage of a universal healthcare system in the U.S. is the potential to address the epidemic level of non-communicable chronic diseases” as well as being able to prevent them before they become worse (3). They not only provide a strong argument but support their argument with evidence. However, although they believe healthcare should be free, they address the disadvantages of it as well. For example, they argue that “increased wait times in the U.S. would likely occur—at least in the short term—as a result of a steep rise in the number of primary and emergency care visits (due to eliminating the financial barrier to seek care),” thousands of Americans will take advantage of free healthcare. Zieff et al. continue to explain that it will only be temporarily while people begin to seek for medical help since this wasn’t an option for them in the past. 

On the other hand, Haislmaier and Hall make a strong argument that people are going to have to worry about an increase on taxes if free healthcare came to be. They argue that thousands of Americans won’t benefit from this program because “American workers would have to hand over 36.5 percent of their wages to the federal government,” this by no means benefit them but rather worsen their financial situations (11). Although they make a valid argument, their only focus on their article is the increase of taxes and the different ways it would affect the various households. Haislmaier and Hall don’t provide an opposing view in their argument for their audience to take into consideration but rather keep their focused more on the disadvantages of free healthcare. 

Overall, neither side is entirely successful in their positions, however, both present strong arguments on why free healthcare should and shouldn’t be guaranteed free of cost. Zieff et al. focus on both the advantages and disadvantages of obtaining free healthcare, they provided a more detailed article that helps the reader understand both sides of the argument. For example, they share with their readers how free universal healthcare will create a healthier public. However, they go on by letting readers know that the disadvantage would be the tax cost to fund a program like this. On the other hand, Haislmaier and Hall primary focus on two main points how the rise in taxes would affect citizens and how free healthcare would eliminate private and employers’ insurance. Haislmaier and Hall’s strongest argument is how taxes would the various households. However, their biggest weakness in their argument was not providing an opposing view on the subject and not providing enough information on how free healthcare would affect thousands of Americans besides just the raise of taxes and elimination of private healthcare insurances. 

                    
               Image from article "Opinion: Excessive regulation is fueling a health care crisis in Utah"

Compromise

            In my opinion, after reviewing both arguments, I think free healthcare would be beneficial to thousands of Americans. In the Unites States, thousands of Americans would gain equal access to medical help without having the constant anxiety or fear of getting a bill over thousands of dollars. I do wholeheartedly believe that free healthcare would also improve the public health, people would seek medical attention and be informed on topics such as diabetes’s and obesity. Universal Healthcare would help prevent thousands of illnesses and diseases from worsening leading to better preventative measures. However, I also agree with Haislmaier and Hall, free healthcare would need a tax raise to fund it. Thousands of Americans depend on the money leftover after tax deductions and a tax change could affect Americans. For example, there are thousands of citizens who live paycheck to paycheck barely making it through, a change in taxes can cost financially hurt them rather than helo them. An effective solution to this problem is tax pay based off income, this would mean that people contribute a percentage based off their total earn still allowing citizens to continue living the way they do now. For example, everyone would pay the same percentage, however, since those in higher classes get more than those in lower classes, they would be contributing more but with the same percentage as those in lower and middle classes. The Government would also have to work on a way to lower the cost of living and put that reduced percentage into the tax pay for free healthcare. For example, reducing the cost of living would allow citizens to put the reduced amount into the healthcare plan to make healthcare free. Ultimately, there is perfect solution to either of the argument’s problems, however, if this is something that many citizens want then the government should be to give them what they want. Now, if the majority of American people prefer the way that private and employed based insurances work then there is no need to change anything. However, If Americans aren’t benefiting from the program, they are funding, then perhaps it shouldn’t be implemented, the reason behind wanting healthcare free of cost is to reduce financial stress.