Universal Healthcare: Advantages and Disadvantages

Topic: Healthcare Research
Words: 661 Pages: 2

Notably, healthcare prices have been rising in the United States. Some claim that a universal health care system would save costs while expanding access to treatments. Others claim that it can cost more and even degrade the quality of care. Therefore, a search for two editorials from opposing viewpoints was conducted to analyze and contrast each argument regarding impartiality and the forms of evidence offered. The first opinion states that universal healthcare has significant drawbacks (Luthra). Researchers from around the globe praise Germany’s excellent healthcare system, which includes universal health coverage, reasonable prescription pricing, and low expenditures for citizens (Luthra). Unlike in the United States, the threat of a high medical cost does not prevent anyone from receiving treatment. Therefore, Shefali Luthra, an American health care correspondent traveling around Germany, sought to discover where the universal healthcare system falls short and present evidence.

Medical treatment for all is simply one component of the equation. Luthra discovered that treatment and preventative care are difficult to obtain in remote regions. Another constraint on the clinic’s capacity to satisfy demand is a scarcity of physicians interested in working in such settings. Furthermore, the environmental issues besetting these locations are more difficult to address (Luthra). For instance, Poliklinik’s area lies immediately off the highway; it is densely packed with old industrial factories and warehouses, resulting in poor air quality and an increased risk of asthma and lung illness. Patients in these neighborhoods have housing issues, causing families to become congested in small apartments (Luthra). In addition to the psychological burden, diseases and infections spread rapidly. In principle, one might use public transportation to another city area to find a specialist, but it will be time-consuming and involve money for the commute. People in Germany can obtain treatment if needed, but social factors are far more essential than accessibility. Thus, the same problems can arise in the United States when implementing universal healthcare.

The second viewpoint is that the United States urgently needs to implement healthcare accessible for all citizens. Robert Hughes, a Wharton professor of corporate ethics and legal studies, is a proponent of universal health care coverage (Hughes, Does the U.S. Need Universal Health Care?). Hughes contends that equitable access to medical treatment helps both liberty and social concord based on his philosophical analysis. He expresses his disappointment that residents must turn to GoFundMe for medical care funds; consequently, there is a power imbalance (Hughes, Does the U.S. Need Universal Health Care?). Additionally, the professor made the argument for universal health care by examining the healthcare systems utilized by Canada, the U.K., and Australia, finding that Canada’s single-payer system is more suitable for the United States.

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the disparities in American society than the healthcare system. Costs are increasing due to a sophisticated network of private insurers, social welfare programs, and politics has resulted in fundamental barriers to necessary medical treatment for large segments of the U.S. population (Hughes, Does the U.S. Need Universal Health Care?). Furthermore, the professor’s reasoning indicates that to safeguard people’s liberty, the government should prohibit them from spending personal funds on healthcare (Hughes, Egalitarian Provision 57). The state must ensure that citizens are not pushed to choose between stealing and conforming with other citizens’ legally discretionary choices to be healthy (Hughes, Egalitarian Provision 68). It will help avoid enforcing legal requirements that citizens may not be morally obligated to follow. As a result, making healthcare more accessible to more people is critical.

To conclude, Shefali Luthra examined German universal healthcare to present proof of disadvantages that the United States can experience, such as increased costs due to a lack of professionals ready to work in remote locations. On the contrary, Robert Hughes stated that universal healthcare is an urgent need and Canada’s system is most suitable for the United States. According to Hughes’ philosophical studies, equal access to medical treatment benefits freedom and the integrity of society. Both authors used adequate evidence to support their claims.

Works Cited

Hughes, Robert C. “Egalitarian Provision of Necessary Medical Treatment.” The Journal of Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1, 2020, pp. 55-78. doi.org/10.1007/s10892-019-09309-y.

Hughes, Robert. “Does the U.S. Need Universal Health Care?” Editorial. Knowledge at Wharton, 2020.

Luthra, Shefali. “Poor People are Still Sicker Than the Rich in Germany, Despite Universal Health Care.” Editorial. National Public Radio, 2019.

Decision Making in Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing
Breastfeeding and Bottle Feeding: Pros and Cons