Should health care be free for all American citizens in the U.S.?

Posted: January 5th, 2023

Should health care be free for all American citizens in the U.S.?

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Instructor

Due Date

Should health care be free for all American citizens in the U.S.?

The United States is the only highly-industrialized and wealthy country in the world where some citizens have no access to healthcare. It is shameful that in the wealthy nation considered to the super power of the world, millions of Americans cannot access quality healthcare when they need it because they cannot afford it, considering that the United States has one of the highest healthcare costs in the world. Many other Americans do not have health insurance, which makes them delay medical attention until it becomes critical and life-threatening. These problems have a deep-rooted history that can be traced back to the countries fundamental structure.  

The United States is anchored on the culture of individualism, capitalism, and personal responsibility. Therefore, many prior attempts to offer universal health coverage in which the government foots the healthcare costs have failed miserably because they have been resisted by powerful forces that believe such an initiative would deconstruct the fundamental foundation of the country, and convert it to a welfare or socialist state. The country is a market economy in which the ability to pay dictates the services Americans can access, including healthcare services. In addition, American entrepreneurism, which is key economic advancement driver, is anchored on capitalism. Americans believe that free enterprise (including healthcare) should be allowed to thrive because it fosters innovation, wealth creation, and societal advancement. However, in the wake of difficult economic times occasioned by financial crises, natural disasters, and public health calamities, such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the great inequalities in healthcare access and health wellbeing in the United States become glaringly evident. The political and economic model appears to fail at these times because they expose the deficiencies of pursuing profits over the delivery of public goods, such as universal healthcare for all. Today, millions of Americans from vulnerable and minority groups suffer from illnesses because they cannot afford to pay for healthcare services, do not have health insurance, or are underinsured, particularly if they are unemployed (Emanuel, 2018). Besides, the cost of healthcare continues to rise to astronomical levels in the United States, increasingly locking out more American from accessing quality healthcare services (Shabir, 2020). Therefore, healthcare should be free to all American citizens in the United States because it would improve their health wellbeing and reduce the glaring inequalities in the health outcomes existing in the country.  

Foremost, healthcare services should be provided at no charge in the United States to all citizens because the government can afford it as the wealthiest country in the world. The government collects enormous amounts of taxes that it can use to fund a healthcare system that is accessible to all Americans without charging any extra fees for the services rendered. Currently, the United States government provides subsidized insurance alongside the private sector, and having a health cover remains voluntary. Crowley, et al (2020) argues that adopting a single-payer system run by the government would lower the cost of healthcare significantly through reduced administrative, medication and hospital services using economics of scale. The existing multi-player system comprising public and private healthcare insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment suppliers, was dominated by large corporations that controlled market prices to their advantage. Besides, the taxes collected from the Americans would be used to promote a healthy nation with a productive workforce, which would improve the economy of the country in the long-term. Similarly, Schneider (2020) argued that although the United States spent nearly a fifth of its GDP on healthcare in 2020, the health outcomes in the country were low compared to those in other countries that spent much less of their national wealth. The allocation of these resources is left to the market forces, which focus more on the healthcare activities generating most profits rather than those improving access to healthcare by the most vulnerable segments of the population. Wealthy countries that have universal health systems allocate significant resources to primary healthcare and preventative care, which prevents the emergence of serious health complications or the escalation of existing illnesses. In the United States, these areas are underemphasized in the existing healthcare structure. Therefore, Schneider (2020) notes that much of the healthcare resources in the United States are spent on administering the complex healthcare insurance structure, tacking health insurance coverage, and managing the accountability systems rather than investing in transport, housing, and education, which are more robust determinants of population health. In the end, increased taxes that would emanate from increased workforce productivity would enable the government to improve the quality of universal health coverage.

In addition, providing free healthcare to the Americans would reduce the existing inequalities in health outcomes and create a healthier nation. The current market-based system advantages those able to pay and disenfranchises those unable to afford the cost of healthcare. Zieff et al. (2020) support a shift towards a universal healthcare system, in which healthcare services are availed to all citizens irrespective of whether they can pay or not. In this regard, the government would shoulder the financial burden from the vulnerable and financially-challenged members of the American society. They argue that such a system would improve the health of American society, reducing the costs associated with an unhealthy populace in the long-term. Similarly, Blumenthal et al. (2020) noted that the eligibility to the highly-subsidized Medicaid and Medicare was restricted to specific population segments and lacked awareness-raising among Americans, especially those that had lost their jobs. This causes the disparities health outcomes to widen because the government does not play a central role in narrowing them, as is the case in other countries that have functional universal healthcare system and better health outcomes than those in the United States.

Further, making healthcare free to all American citizens would free them from the heavy burden of exorbitant healthcare cost that often risk families becoming bankrupt, eroding their financial stability.  The ongoing covid-19 pandemic has rendered many Americans jobless leaving them without employer healthcare coverage. This Americans join scores of others that are unable to afford healthcare insurance in the open market or that are underinsured. Alspaugh et al. (2020) revealed that 5.4 million Americans lost their jobs between February and May of 2020 and that about 8% of the American population was uninsured. The most afflicted population segment was people from ethnic minorities, living in rural areas, and those with low socio-economic status.

However, making healthcare free for all would deny the Americans the opportunity select their preferred services, with the government usurping the individual responsibility and autonomy, which anchors the American society. For instance, Smith, Hodson, and Rubin (2021) revealed that many American parents opposed mandatory vaccination because they felt that it infringed on their rights to select the medical interventions of their choice. The resistance to mandatory vaccination indicates that many Americans feel they can they are well capable of making better decisions related to their healthcare compared to the government, which may not understand or accommodate the peculiar individual needs of all Americans.

In addition, providing free healthcare would make the United States government to be business operator rather than a regulator, which is discouraged by the American society and constitution. Hahn, Truman, and Williams (2018) argue that many federal government initiatives, like the Affordable Care Act, makes the government deeply involved in the Americans personal lives, overreaching its mandate. There are Americans that believe that civil liberties were included in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because Americans needed to be protected from the government. Many Americans do not trust their government and feel that its participation in health insurance is aimed at benefiting large corporates rather than the common American citizen (Hahn, Truman, & Williams, 2018).

In conclusion, providing free healthcare to all American is more beneficial than detrimental to the American society. With the United States being a highly stratified and unequal society despite its vast riches, the many Americans that cannot afford and access quality healthcare would be assured of healthcare services regardless of their ability to pay. Having a healthier nation that has a healthy workforce is beneficial to the economy while freeing Americans from paying from healthcare services would enhance their disposable income and secure them financially. However, this initiative would face much opposition from those who feel that the government has no business usurping the autonomy of individual citizens or participating in the healthcare business. Making healthcare free to all Americans would exert significant pressure on the American constitution and culture, which promotes personal responsibility, the right to individual choices, and capitalism. The existing health inequalities and high cost of health care would persist if government-funded universal health coverage is not implemented.   

Annotated bibliography

All sources are available at the Library and Information Resources Network (LIRN) database.

Source 1:

Alspaugh, A., Lanshaw, N., Kriebs, J., & Van Hoover, C. (2021). Universal health care for the United States: A primer for health care providers. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13233

Perspective: For argument

Analysis: The source makes a case for universal healthcare from a human rights and reproductive justice perspective. Authors provide economic reasons promoting the implementation of universal healthcare and the social benefits it would provide. They noted that in the present healthcare system, United States’ residents paid high out-of-pocket for increasingly inferior healthcare outcomes. This peer-reviewed journal article will support the thesis and the argument in support of making healthcare free.

Source 2:

Blumenthal, D., Fowler, E. J., Abrams, M., & Collins, S. R. (2020). Covid-19—implications for the health care system. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(15), 1483-1488. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsb2021088

Perspective: For argument

Analysis: This source outlines the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the United States’ healthcare system. This global pandemic has unearthed the suboptimal performance of the American healthcare system and the source blames the market-bases structure. This source is used to demonstrate why the current healthcare structure was not working for the United States. The peer-reviewed journal article is used to support the thesis by explaining the importance of universal coverage during pandemics and other unforeseen calamities.  

Source 3:

Crowley, R., Daniel, H., Cooney, T. G., & Engel, L. S. (2020). Envisioning a better US health care system for all: coverage and cost of care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(2_Supplement), S7-S32. https://doi.org/10.7326/m19-2415

Perspective: For argument

Analysis: The American college of physicians advocates a policy framework that envisages an improved healthcare system in which all Americans have access to quality healthcare at a cost that the United States can afford. This source advocates a universal health system to reduce the high costs associated with hospital services, prescription medication, and administration. The peer-reviewed journal article is used to support the thesis

Source 4:

Emanuel, E. J. (2018). The real cost of the US health care system. JAMA, 319(10), 983-985. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.1151

Perspective: Background

Analysis: This resource provides vital information regarding why healthcare cost is high in the United States and why the high cost is responsible for the unequal healthcare outcomes in the country. This source is used to provide a background to the issue being discussed. The peer-reviewed journal article provides information related to the source of the current problem with the healthcare system in the United States.

Source 5:

Hahn, R. A., Truman, B. I., & Williams, D. R. (2018). Civil rights as determinants of public health and racial and ethnic health equity: health care, education, employment, and housing in the United States. SSM-Population Health, 4, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.10.006

Perspective: Against argument

Analysis: This resource emphasizes health as a civil rights issue and points out that some government healthcare programs, like Medicaid and Medicare, are discriminatory because they focus on a segment of the population. However, it advances the notion that private hospitals were exempt from federal regulation and Americans reserve the right of selecting hospitals to visit for their healthcare needs. This resource outlines the conflict presented by health as a public good and the role of government. The peer-reviewed journal article is used to support the arguments opposing the thesis.

Source 6:

Schneider, E. C. (2020). Health care as an ongoing policy project. New England Journal of Medicine, 383, 405-408. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp2021701

Perspective: For argument

Analysis: The source demonstrates the differences in healthcare outcomes between the United States and other high-income countries. It attributes the suboptimal health outcomes in the United States to the manner in which the government allocates resources. The article is used to support the thesis. The source is published by a highly-credible peer-reviewed journal renowned for valuable information in the medical field.

Source 7:

Shabir, A. (2020). Should all healthcare be free? Young Scientist Journal. retrieved from https://ysjournal.com/should-all-healthcare-be-free/

Perspective: For argument

Analysis: The resource makes a case for free healthcare services because it was inhumane to deny life-saving care to any person because of the inability to pay. It is used in the introductory segment to introduce the thesis statement.

Source 8:

Smith, L. E., Hodson, A., & Rubin, G. J. (2021). Parental attitudes towards mandatory vaccination; a systematic review. Vaccine, 39(30), 4046-4053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.06.018

Perspective: Against argument

Analysis: The American society values the individual autonomy of making decisions related to healthcare and many Americans oppose any attempts from the government to usurp such powers. This source argues that many American parents have a negative attitude towards mandatory vaccination because they felt that the government was infringing on their rights and liberties regarding whether to be or not to be vaccinated. This source supports the opposing view towards making healthcare services free to all Americans by associating mandatory vaccination with financial incentives as the governments version of providing free healthcare and denying Americans to select whether to be vaccinated or not. Individual healthcare choices are a right that would be denied through mandatory healthcare services. This source is from Vaccine, which is a credible peer-reviewed journal.

Source 9:

Zieff, G., Kerr, Z. Y., Moore, J. B., & Stoner, L. (2020). Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate. Medicina, 56(11), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580

Perspective. For argument

Analysis: The United States health system advantages the financially-endowed segment of the population and disenfranchises those in the low social-economic status. Therefore, the source advocates a shift towards a universal healthcare system that is funded by the government in place of the current market-based one, to reduce the existing health inequalities in the United States.  This source is from medicina, which is a credible peer-reviewed journal.