Universal Healthcare Reform: Promoting Equity and Public Health
Jan 12, 2024 | Written By Sophia Mai
Universal healthcare in the US has been a widely debated topic. Opponents of universal healthcare reason that there will be an increased financial burden on taxpayers, prevent economic growth, and create inefficiencies in administrative processes and access to healthcare services. While opponents of healthcare reform argue that healthcare imposes financial burdens and limit individual freedoms, universal healthcare should be implemented in the US because it will promote equitability among individuals, improve public health, and allow for a more efficient, stable society.
People who support provisions to create a nation that has universal healthcare generally support loose constructionism and argue for a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution because of the changes in society, people’s needs, and circumstances. Those who argue for healthcare reforms that benefit the whole population may say that the federal government has the authority to implement healthcare reforms based on the broad interpretation of the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause. The topic of healthcare being more universal applies to the position of loose constructionism because, without a different interpretation of the Constitution that is used to adapt to modern challenges, it will be difficult to address these problems, such as healthcare and the needs of the population. A loose view of the General Welfare Clause can grant powers to the government to promote the general welfare, such as healthcare that benefits the well-being of the whole country. Without embracing a broad interpretation of the Constitution that can adapt to the changes in society, it becomes increasingly difficult to approach and solve pressing issues that plague society, such as access to health services.
To begin, healthcare reforms such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have promoted equity in healthcare and provided better access to services for individuals in America. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was passed in 2010 with the goal of providing universal healthcare for all. This aimed to expand access to affordable healthcare for millions of America and has made a significant impact on healthcare. It has improved the “health of all Americans, including women and families, kids, older adults, people with disabilities, LGBTQI+ and communities of color,”(“Fact Sheet: Celebrating the Affordable Care Act”) allowing more people to access necessary healthcare and expanding the number of people, especially low-income individuals and minorities, who have improved health outcomes. This relates to promoting equitability among individuals as the act has improved care for minorities, such as reducing almost half of the uninsured rate of LGBTI+ populations since 2010, providing 4 million Latinos and 3 million African Americans with healthcare, and expanding coverage to more than 21 million people (“Fact Sheet: Celebrating the Affordable Care Act”). These accomplishments display the positive impact that the Affordable Care Act had on enhancing access to healthcare, improving the outcomes for vulnerable groups, and reducing gaps and disparities.
Additionally, universal healthcare should be implemented in the US because it improves public health. Canada has a universal healthcare system called Medicare through the Canada Health Act of 1984. Canada’s citizens live longer, healthier lives compared to Americans, “suggesting that America's lack of universal health care and lower levels of social and economic equality are to blame” (“Canadians lead longer, healthier lives than Americans.”). Canada has better health outcomes, such as infant mortality and life expectancy, and the benefit of their system is that everyone is ensured. This is evident, especially during the pandemic, when patients could be taken in by hospitals without having to check whether insurance companies cover certain procedures or check-ups and can receive care. ”Hospitals work with a single insurer, she said, and that means care is better coordinated across institutions.” (Santhanam). This relates to improving public health because new provisions that build up to universal healthcare can provide benefits to people regardless of their socioeconomic status and display tangible improvements to the overall health of citizens in comparison to other developed nations such as the United States. Canada and other countries that have a form of universal healthcare can provide examples to other nations to consider providing more for citizens and enhancing health outcomes.
Moreover, equal healthcare should be implemented in the US because it allows for a more efficient and stable society. Switzerland has some of the highest life expectancies and lowest infant mortality rates in the world, displaying the effects of Switzerland’s universal healthcare model. This is displayed further by statistics that the US uses 17.1% of GDP while Switzerland utilizes 12.3% (Markey). This relates to a more stable and effective society because this displays that systems similar to those of Switzerland’s universal healthcare can be both more cost-efficient and more beneficial to the nation’s population allowing individuals to live healthier, more productive lives and obtain reduced costs for healthcare that is available to everyone. When comparing healthcare systems among 11 high-income nations, “United States invests the highest proportion of its gross domestic product on health care, [but] the United States has the weakest health system overall” (“The Health Care Systems of the United States and Switzerland”). Universal healthcare provides citizens with the assurance that their health needs are covered and allows them to fulfill life goals without the burden of worrying about uncovered medical bills or checkups. By shifting the focus and priority of financial concerns regarding healthcare, people can prioritize their health, enhancing their quality of life and increasing productivity creating a more stable and effective society.
The position of universal healthcare reform relates to natural rights in that there is a more loose interpretation of the Constitution and its mentions of natural rights. With a flexible interpretation of the Constitution, proponents of universal healthcare see that the right to health services is a fundamental right that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Universal healthcare can be seen as a means of protecting these fundamental rights and recognizing that adequate healthcare services are necessary to promote healthy lives, the right to happiness, and liberty as it allows people to afford healthcare without financial limits.
This topic and position relate to popular sovereignty because it ensures that healthcare and resources are allocated to helping and improving the well-being of the population and is a fundamental right that is guaranteed to all, regardless of socioeconomic status. People give the government consent and, through advocating for more reforms to healthcare for all, address the need for better healthcare that addresses the needs of all citizens. Universal healthcare may align with the needs of the people, create a more inclusive and equal society, and ensure access to healthcare as a fundamental right not reserved for certain individuals.
Republicanism emphasizes the common good and welfare of citizens as principles of governance and displays that the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare of its people. Republicanism refers to the participation of citizens in government through electing representatives and voicing concerns about societal issues. By actively participating and advocating for equal access to healthcare, citizens are exercising their right to voice their preference for healthcare services by voting for individuals who will address their concerns or by pressuring representatives to prioritize healthcare. Universal healthcare aligns with Republican values because of the goal to provide equitable access to healthcare professionals regardless of socioeconomic status and that everyone deserves the opportunity to live a healthy life. Republican values of providing for the common good rather than individual interests are displayed by the need to provide universal healthcare and recognizing that it is a basic human right and part of a well-functioning society. Healthcare reform also holds the value of equal opportunity and recognizes that individuals should have equal access to services and necessary medical treatment.
Universal healthcare relates to the principles of the social contract because people give up certain rights to the government in exchange for protection and benefits. Universal healthcare can be seen as an agreement by the people and the government to ensure the health and well-being of the population and protect the rights and interests of the people. Guaranteeing access to healthcare for all individuals enforces the idea that healthcare goes beyond individual boundaries and is a collective interest of the population. Health and well-being are concerns for the whole population, and reliable access to healthcare can promote more equality and efficiency and address the changing needs of society. Access to healthcare can break down existing barriers and ensures equal access to health services regardless of income level. By recognizing that health is a fundamental right for all individuals, governments serve the people under the social contract to serve the interests of the people.
Despite the benefits that universal healthcare brings, opponents may say that universal healthcare causes more inefficiencies in systems and a lack of freedoms because of increased taxation, especially for higher-income citizens, to compensate for providing healthcare for all. “In terms of the national economic toll, cost estimations of this proposal range from USD 32 to 44 trillion across 10 years” (Zieff), which will hinder economic growth and limit personal financial freedoms. While it is true that implementing universal healthcare will result in higher taxation, there are benefits such as improved health outcomes and long-term benefits to accessible and reduced healthcare costs in the long run. The US spends twice as much on healthcare compared to other developed nations that have universal healthcare. Countries like Germany have lower mortality rates and higher life expectancies compared to the US, and the US uses 17% of GDP, while Switzerland utilizes 12.3% (Markey). Government-supported healthcare is less costly compared to private insurance in the US and provides better health benefits to individuals. This displays that universal healthcare can both be more cost-effective and allow for more health benefits to individuals of a country.
The right to healthcare and the amount of government intervention regarding this issue will continue to be debated. While opponents of universal healthcare argue that there will be consequences such as increased taxation and less efficiency in the healthcare system, the US should have universal healthcare because it will promote equality, improve health outcomes for individuals, and allow for a more efficient, stable society.
Thank you for taking time out of your day to read this blog on STEMATA, and I hope you found value in the content! Feel free to comment on this blog, share with others, and follow me on Instagram @stemata.learning for updates on when I come out with new blogs, videos, and more!
Consider donating by clicking the donate button or dropdown in the top right corner to support one of our initiatives to provide low-income students with STEM experiment boxes and school supplies and to help them explore their passions in science fields. Thank you for your consideration and support!