government should provide health care essay

Point Turning Point: the Case for Universal Health Care

An argument that the COVID-19 pandemic might be the turning point for universal health care.

Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care

As we all grapple with our new reality, it's difficult to think of anything beyond the basics. How do we keep our families safe? Are we washing our hands enough ? Do we really have to sanitize the doorknobs and surfaces every day? How do we get our cats to stop videobombing our Zoom meetings? Do we have enough toilet paper?

Win McNamee | Getty Images

The more we read the headlines, the more we feel the need to do something, or at least say something. Change is happening – ready or not. Maybe talking about some of these important issues can lead to action that will help us steer out of this skid.

Historically, Americans have found ways to meet their circumstances with intention, moving in mass to make heretofore unimaginable change that has sustained and improved our lives to this day. The Great Depression lead to the creation of the New Deal and Social Security. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire brought about change in labor conditions. The Cuyahoga River fire lead to the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Could the COVID-19 pandemic be the turning point for universal health care? We can't think of a more propitious time. In the first two weeks of April, 5.2 million Americans filed for unemployment. Economists believe that 30% unemployment is possible by fall. For most Americans, our health care is tied to our employment, and because of this, millions of Americans are losing their health care just when they may need it the most. Economists predict that health insurance premiums will likely increase by 40% in the next year due to less payers and more who are in need of care and the eventual collapse of private health care insurance .

Our current circumstances have illustrated the need for universal health care in a way that is obvious and undeniable. Below we have listed the most frequent arguments in opposition followed by an evidence-based rebuttal.

1. Point: "Governments are wasteful and shouldn't be in charge of health care."

Counterpoint: In 2017, the U.S. spent twice as much on health care (17.1% of GDP) as comparable Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries (OECD) (8.8% of GDP), all of whom have universal health care. The country with the second highest expenditure after the U.S. is Switzerland at 12.3%, nearly 5% less. Of all these countries, the U.S. has the highest portion of private insurance. In terms of dollars spent, the average per capita health care spending of OECD countries is $3,558, while in the U.S. it's $10,207 – nearly three times as costly.

Bottom line: Among industrialized countries with comparable levels of economic development, government-provided health care is much more efficient and more economical than the U.S. system of private insurance.

2. Point: "U.S. health care is superior to the care offered by countries with universal health care."

Counterpoint: According to the Commonwealth Health Fund , in the U.S., infant mortality is higher and the life span is shorter than among all comparable economies that provide universal health care. Maternal mortality in the U.S. is 30 per 100,000 births and 6.4 per 100,000 births on average in comparable countries, which is nearly five times worse.

In addition, the U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) and an obesity rate that is two times higher than the OECD average. In part due to these neglected conditions, in comparison to comparable countries, the U.S. (as of 2016) had among the highest number of hospitalizations from preventable causes and the highest rate of avoidable deaths.

The Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker , which is a collaborative effort to monitor the quality and cost of U.S. health care, shows that among comparable countries with universal health care, mortality rate is lower across the board on everything from heart attacks to child birth. The U.S. also has higher rates of medical, medication and lab errors relative to similar countries with universal health care.

Bottom line: With our largely privately funded health care system, we are paying more than twice as much as other countries for worse outcomes.

3. Point: "Universal health care would be more expensive."

Counterpoint: The main reason U.S. health care costs are so high is because we don't have universal health care. Unlike other first world countries, the health care system in the U.S. is, to a great extent, run through a group of businesses. Pharmaceutical companies are businesses. Insurance companies are businesses. Hospital conglomerates are businesses. Even doctors' offices are businesses.

Businesses are driven to streamline and to cut costs because their primary goal is to make a profit. If they don't do this, they can't stay in business. It could mean that in the process of "streamlining," they would be tempted to cut costs by cutting care. Under the current system, a share of our health care dollars goes to dividends rather than to pay for care, hospitals are considered a "financial asset" rather than a public service entity and a large portion of their budgets are dedicated to marketing rather than patient care.

Given all these business expenses, it shouldn't be surprising that the business-oriented privately funded health care system we have is more expensive and less effective than a government provided universal system. In addition, for the health care system as a whole, universal health care would mean a massive paperwork reduction. A universal system would eliminate the need to deal with all the different insurance forms and the negotiations over provider limitations. As a result, this would eliminate a large expense for both doctors and hospitals.

The economist Robert Kuttner critiques the system this way: "For-profit chains … claim to increase efficiencies by centralizing administration, cutting waste, buying supplies in bulk at discounted rates, negotiating discounted fees with medical professionals, shifting to less wasteful forms of care and consolidating duplicative facilities." As he points out, "using that logic, the most efficient 'chain' of all is a universal national system."

Evidence to support these points can be found in a recent Yale University study that showed that single-payer Medicare For All would result in a 13% savings in national health-care expenditures. This would save the country $450 billion annually.

Bottom line: Universal health care would be less expensive overall, and an added benefit would be that health care decisions would be put in the hands of doctors rather than insurance companies, which have allegiances to shareholders instead of patient care.

4. Point: "I have to take care of my own family. I can't afford to worry about other people."

Counterpoint: It is in all of our best interests to take care of everyone. Aside from the fact that it is the compassionate and moral thing to do, viruses do not discriminate. When people don't have insurance, they won't go to the doctor unless they're gravely ill. Then, they're more likely to spread illness to you and your family members while they delay getting the care they need.

In addition, when people wait for care or don't get the prophylactic care then need, they end up in the emergency room worse off with more costly complications and requiring more resources than if they had been treated earlier. Taxpayers currently cover this cost. This affects everyone, insured or not. Why not prevent the delay upfront and make it easy for the patient to get treatment early and, as an added bonus, cost everyone less money?

In addition, the health of the economy impacts everyone. Healthy workers are essential to healthy businesses and thus a healthy economy. According to the Harvard School of Public Health , people who are able to maintain their health are more likely to spend their money on goods and services that drive the economy.

Bottom line: The health of others is relevant to the health of our families either through containment of infectious diseases such as COVID-19 or through the stability of the economy. Capitalism works best with a healthy workforce.

5. Point: "Entrepreneurship and innovation is what makes the U.S. a world leader."

Counterpoint: Imagine how many people in the U.S. could start their own businesses or bring their ideas to market if they didn't have to worry about maintaining health care for their families. So many people stay tethered to jobs they hate just so their family has health care. With workers not needing to stay in jobs they don't like in order to secure health insurance, universal healthcare would enable people to acquire jobs where they would be happier and more productive. Workers who wanted to start their own business could more easily do so, allowing them to enter the most creative and innovative part of our economy – small businesses.

In his book, "Everything for Sale," economist Robert Kuttner asserts that it's important to understand that businesses outside of the U.S. don't have to provide health care for their employees, which makes them more competitive. From a business point of view, American companies, released from the burden of paying employee insurance, would be more competitive internationally. They would also be more profitable as they wouldn't have to do all the paperwork and the negotiating involved with being the intermediary between employees and insurance companies.

Bottom line: Unburdening businesses from the responsibility of providing health insurance for their employees would increase competitiveness as well as encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and allow small businesses room to thrive.

6. Point: "The wait times are too long in countries with universal health care."

Counterpoint: The wait times on average are no longer in countries with universal healthcare than they are in the U.S., according to the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker . In some cases, the wait times are longer in the U.S., with insurance companies using valuable time with their requirements to obtain referrals and approvals for sometimes urgently needed treatments. On average, residents of Germany, France, UK, Australia, and the Netherlands reported shorter wait times relative to the U.S.

Bottom line: Wait times are longer in the U.S. when compared with many countries with a universal health care system.

7. Point: "My insurance is working just fine, so why change anything?"

Counterpoint: A comprehensive study conducted in 2018 found that 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and, of those, 75% were insured at the time. Most people who have insurance are insufficiently covered and are one accident, cancer diagnosis or heart attack away from going bankrupt and losing everything. The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world whose citizens go bankrupt due to medical bills. And, if you survive a serious illness and don't go bankrupt, you may end up buried in bills and paperwork from your insurance company and medical providers. All of this takes time and energy that would be better spent healing or caring for our loved ones. Besides, we don't need to abolish private health insurance. Some countries like Germany have a two-tiered system that provides basic non-profit care for all but also allows citizens to purchase premium plans through private companies.

Bottom line: Private insurance does not protect against medical bankruptcy, but universal health care does. The residents of countries with universal health care do not go bankrupt due to medical bills.

8. Point: "I don't worry about losing my insurance because if I lose my job, I can just get another one."

Counterpoint: We can't predict what will happen with the economy and whether another job will be available to us. This pandemic has proven that it can all go bad overnight. In addition, if you lose your job, there is less and less guarantee that you will find a new job that provides insurance . Providing insurance, because it is so expensive, has become an increasingly difficult thing for companies to do. Even if you're able to find a company that provides health care when you change jobs, you would be relying on your employer to choose your health plan. This means that the employee assumes that the company has his or her best interests in mind when making that choice, rather than prioritizing the bottom line for the benefit of the business. Even if they're not trying to maximize their profit, many companies have been forced to reduce the quality of the insurance they provide to their workers, simply out of the need to be more competitive or maintain solvency.

Bottom line: There are too many factors beyond our control (e.g., pandemic, disability, economic recession) to ensure anyone's employment and, thus, health care. Universal health care would guarantee basic care. Nobody would have to go without care due to a job loss, there would be greater control over costs and businesses would not have to fold due to the exorbitant and rising cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

9. Point: "Pharmaceutical companies need to charge so much because of research and development."

Counterpoint: It's usually not the pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs. They develop similar drugs that are variations on existing drugs, altered slightly so that they can claim a new patent. Or they buy out smaller companies that developed new drugs, thus minimizing their own R&D costs. Most commonly, they manufacture drugs developed under funding from the National Institutes of Health, and thus, the tax payers are the greatest funder of drug development via NIH grants provided to university labs.

Oddly, this investment in R&D does not appear to extend any discount to the tax payers themselves. In "The Deadly Costs of Insulin, " the author writes that insulin was developed in a university lab in 1936. In 1996, the cost of a vial of insulin was $21. Today, the cost of a vial of insulin could be as much as $500, causing some without insurance to risk their lives by rationing or going without. The cost of manufacturing the drug has not gone up during that time. So, what accounts for the huge increase in price? In " The Truth About Drug Companies ," the author demonstrates that drug companies use the bulk of their profits for advertising, not R&D or manufacturing. A universal health care system would not only not need to advertise, but would also be more effective at negotiating fair drug prices. Essentially, the government as a very large entity could negotiate price much more effectively as one large system with the government as the largest purchaser.

Bottom line: Taxpayers contribute most of the money that goes into drug development. Shouldn't they also reap some of the benefits of their contribution to R&D? Americans should not have to decide between their heart medication and putting food on the table when their tax dollars have paid for the development of many of these medications.

10. Point: "I don't want my taxes to go up."

Counterpoint: Health care costs and deductibles will go down to zero and more than compensate for any increase in taxes, and overall health care needs will be paid for, not just catastrophic health events. According to the New York Times , “…when an American family earns around $43,000, half of the average compensation when including cash wages plus employer payroll tax and premium contributions, 37% of that ends up going to taxes and health care premiums. In high-tax Finland, the same type of family pays 23% of their compensation in labor taxes, which includes taxes they pay to support universal health care. In France, it’s 2%. In the United Kingdom and Canada, it is less than 0% after government benefits.”

Bottom line: With a universal health care system, health care costs and deductibles will be eliminated and compensate for any increase in taxes.

11. Point: "I don't want to have to pay for health care for people making bad choices or to cover their pre-existing conditions."

Counterpoint: Many of the health problems on the pre-existing conditions list are common, genetically influenced and often unavoidable. One estimate indicates that up to 50% – half! – of all (non-elderly) adults have a pre-existing condition. Conditions on the list include anxiety, arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, heart defect, menstrual irregularities, stroke and even pregnancy. With universal health care, no one would be denied coverage.

It's easy to assume that your health is under your control, until you get into an accident, are diagnosed with cancer or have a child born prematurely. All of a sudden, your own or your child's life may rely on health care that costs thousands or even millions of dollars. The health insurance that you once thought of as "good enough" may no longer suffice, bankruptcy may become unavoidable and you (or your child) will forever have a pre-existing condition. Some people may seem careless with their health, but who's to judge what an avoidable health problem is, vs. one that was beyond their control?

For the sake of argument, let's say that there are some folks in the mix who are engaging in poor health-related behaviors. Do we really want to withhold quality care from everyone because some don't take care of their health in the way we think they should? Extending that supposition, we would withhold public education just because not everyone takes it seriously.

Bottom line: In 2014, protections for pre-existing conditions were put in place under the Affordable Care Act. This protection is under continuous threat as insurance company profits are placed above patient care. Universal health care would ensure that everyone was eligible for care regardless of any conditions they may have.

And, if universal health care is so awful, why has every other first-world nation implemented it? These countries include: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and the U.K.

Changing collective minds can seem impossible. But there is precedent. Once unimaginable large-scale change has happened in our lifetime (e.g. legalization of gay marriage, election of the first black president of the U.S. and the #MeToo movement), and support for universal health care has never been higher (71% in favor, according to a 2019 Hill-HarrisX survey ).

Point: As Chuck Pagano said, "If you don't have your health, you don't have anything."

Counterpoint: If good health is everything, why don't we vote as if our lives depended on it? This pandemic has taught us that it does.

Bottom line: Launching universal health care in the U.S. could be a silver lining in the dark cloud of this pandemic. Rather than pay lip service to what really matters, let's actually do something by putting our votes in service of what we really care about: the long-term physical and economic health of our families, our communities and our country.

Photos: Hospital Heroes

Tags: health insurance , health care , Coronavirus , pandemic , New Normal

Most Popular

health disclaimer »

Disclaimer and a note about your health ».

Sign Up for Our 3-Day Guide to Medicare

Confused about Medicare? We can help you understand the different Medicare coverage options available to help you choose the best Medicare coverage for you or a loved one.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

Dementia care: tips for home caregivers.

Elaine K. Howley April 5, 2024

How to Find a Primary Care Doctor

Vanessa Caceres April 5, 2024

Worst Medicare Advantage Plans

Paul Wynn April 4, 2024

Symptoms of a Kidney Problem

Claire Wolters April 4, 2024

Allergies vs. Colds

Payton Sy April 4, 2024

Types of Medical Specialists

Christine Comizio April 3, 2024

Medicare Advantage HMOs vs. PPOs

Paul Wynn March 29, 2024

Symptoms of Magnesium Deficiency

Elaine K. Howley March 29, 2024

How Chemotherapy Works

Payton Sy March 28, 2024

Stomach Bloating Causes and Relief

Tamara Duker Freuman and Gretel Schueller March 27, 2024

• Use Messenger
• Send us an email

Should Government Provide Free Health Care?

The issue of health care is one of the most important aspects of an election campaign of any political party, which certainly reflects the extent to what the society depends on a good healthcare service . A well-organized, efficient health care system is not that easy to provide and one of the key problems on the way to the ideal hospitals and medical help is proper funding. Nowadays, there are three basic types of funding: private, insurance and state. Nevertheless, many people believe that the government must bear full responsibility for providing the money our health care service needs . However, I do not completely agree with the idea.

The government will not be able to provide enough money to guarantee the use of the most innovative methods of treatment. It is not a secret that medicine and medical equipment are outrageously expensive. Moreover, government has several branches of the social sector, such as education and culture, which also do not produce anything, but need funding. Providing enough money for all these spheres will sooner or later result in the budget deficit and, as a result, in the increase of taxes, which means that the main financial burden is on an average citizen again .

In my opinion, an ideal variant will be a combination of all the existing sources of finance. Some rich people may prefer to pay for medical treatment , while the government must necessarily subsidize the health care for children , senior citizens, the unemployed and the homeless, as these social groups cannot provide for themselves and, thus, are extremely financially vulnerable. However, working adults can use the benefits of the medical insurance , which will give them an opportunity for a decent medical service and reduce the general taxation burden.

Should English Become the Official Language in the United States?

It may be a surprise for many people, but among the fifty or so countries using English as their official language the USA is not listed. The USA does not have the official language at all. After the War for Independence there was an initiative to make English the official language of the new nation,…

How to Write Essay on Civil Rights Movement in the USA

Writing is not everyone’s cup of tea. But following our simple tips on essay writing, you will make sure it is not true. The essay writing guidelines we are going to demonstrate will be based on the topic “Civil Rights Movement in the U.S.”. The topic is quite complex, but there is no need to…

The Overview of the US Federal Government

The Federal Government of the United States of America is as old as the country and the nation themselves – they were formed immediately after the War for Independence and are considered the first federal government in the history of human race. From the very beginning, the spirit of the nation was expressed in the…

Our Services

• Academic ghostwriting
• Admission essay help
• Article writing
• Assignment writing
• College paper writing
• Coursework writing
• Dissertation writing
• Homework writing
• Online classes
• Personal statement writing
• Report writing
• Research paper writing
• Speech writing
• Term paper writing
• Writing tips
• Write my paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Medicina (Kaunas)

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

Gabriel zieff.

1 Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; ude.cnu.liame@rrekz (Z.Y.K.); [email protected] (L.S.)

Zachary Y. Kerr

Justin b. moore.

2 Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA; ude.htlaehekaw@eroomsuj

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.

1. 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 ]. The U.S. has historically utilized a mixed public/private approach to healthcare. In this approach, citizens or businesses can obtain health insurance from private (e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente) insurance companies, while individuals may also qualify for public (e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran’s Affairs), government-subsidized health insurance. In contrast, the vast majority of post-industrial, Westernized nations have used various approaches to provide entirely or largely governmentally subsidized, universal healthcare to all citizens regardless of socio–economic status (SES), employment status, or ability to pay. The World Health Organization defines universal healthcare as “ensuring that all people have access to needed health services (including prevention, promotion, treatment, rehabilitation and palliation) of sufficient quality to be effective while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user the financial hardship” [ 2 ]. Importantly, the Obama-era passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to move the U.S. closer to universal healthcare by expanding health coverage for millions of Americans (e.g., via Medicaid expansion, launch of health insurance marketplaces for private coverage) including for citizens across income levels, age, race, and ethnicity.

Differing versions of universal healthcare are possible. The United Kingdom’s National Health Services can be considered a fairly traditional version of universal healthcare with few options for, and minimal use of, privatized care [ 3 ]. On the other hand, European countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany have utilized a blended system with substantial government and market-based components [ 4 , 5 ]. For example, 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 also available to higher income individuals. Thus, universal healthcare does not necessarily preclude the role of private providers within the healthcare system, but rather ensures that equity and effectiveness of care at population and individual levels are a reference and expectation for the system as a whole. In line with this, versions of universal healthcare have been implemented by countries with diverse political backgrounds (e.g., not limited to traditionally “socialist/liberal” countries), including some with very high degrees of economic freedom [ 6 , 7 ].

Determining the degree to which a nation’s healthcare is “universal” is complex and is not a “black and white” issue. For example, government backing, public will, and basic financing structure, among many other factors must be extensively considered. 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.

2. Argument against Universal Healthcare

Though the majority of post-industrial Westernized nations employ a universal healthcare model, few—if any—of these nations are as geographically large, populous, or ethnically/racially diverse as the U.S. Different regions in the U.S. are defined by distinct cultural identities, citizens have unique religious and political values, and the populace spans the socio–economic spectrum. Moreover, heterogenous climates and population densities confer different health needs and challenges across the U.S. [ 8 ]. Thus, critics of universal healthcare in the U.S. argue that implementation would not be as feasible—organizationally or financially—as other developed nations [ 9 ]. There is indeed agreement that realization of universal healthcare in the U.S. would necessitate significant upfront costs [ 10 ]. These costs would include those related to: (i) physical and technological infrastructural changes to the healthcare system, including at the government level (i.e., federal, state, local) as well as the level of the provider (e.g., hospital, out-patient clinic, pharmacy, etc.); (ii) insuring/treating a significant, previously uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of the population; and (iii) expansion of the range of services provided (e.g., dental, vision, hearing) [ 10 ].

The cost of a universal healthcare system would depend on its structure, benefit levels, and extent of coverage. However, most proposals would entail increased federal taxes, at least for higher earners [ 4 , 11 , 12 ]. One proposal for universal healthcare recently pushed included options such as a 7.5% payroll tax plus a 4% income tax on all Americans, with higher-income citizens subjected to higher taxes [ 13 ]. However, outside projections suggest that these tax proposals would not be sufficient to fund this plan. In terms of the national economic toll, cost estimations of this proposal range from USD 32 to 44 trillion across 10 years, while deficit estimations range from USD 1.1 to 2.1 trillion per year [ 14 ].

Beyond individual and federal costs, other common arguments against universal healthcare include the potential for general system inefficiency, including lengthy wait-times for patients and a hampering of medical entrepreneurship and innovation [ 3 , 12 , 15 , 16 ]. Such critiques are not new, as exemplified by rhetoric surrounding the Clinton Administration’s Health Security Act which was labeled as “government meddling” in medical care that would result in “big government inefficiency” [ 12 , 15 ]. The ACA has been met with similar resistance and bombast (e.g., the “repeal and replace” right-leaning rallying cry) as a result of perceived inefficiency and unwanted government involvement. As an example of lengthy wait times associated with universal coverage, in 2017 Canadians were on waiting lists for an estimated 1,040,791 procedures, and the median wait time for arthroplastic surgery was 20–52 weeks [ 17 ]. Similarly, average waiting time for elective hospital-based care in the United Kingdom is 46 days, while some patients wait over a year (3). 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), as well as general wastefulness, inefficiency, and disorganization that is often associated with bureaucratic, government-run agencies.

3. Argument for Universal 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 SES segments of the population; and (iv) increasing opportunities for preventive health initiatives [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Perhaps 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 such as cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, and obesity, all of which strain the national economy [ 22 , 23 ]. The economic strain associated with an unhealthy population is particularly evident among low SES individuals. Having a low SES is associated with many unfavorable health determinants, including decreased access to, and quality of health insurance which impact health outcomes and life expectancies [ 24 ]. Thus, the low SES segments of the population are in most need of accessible, quality health insurance, and economic strain results from an unhealthy and uninsured low SES [ 25 , 26 ]. For example, diabetics with low SES have a greater mortality risk than diabetics with higher SES, and the uninsured diabetic population is responsible for 55% more emergency room visits each year than their insured diabetic counterparts [ 27 , 28 ]. Like diabetes, hypertension—the leading risk factor for death worldwide [ 29 ], has a much higher prevalence among low SES populations [ 30 ]. It is estimated that individuals with uncontrolled hypertension have more than USD 2000 greater annual healthcare costs than their normotensive counterparts [ 31 ]. Lastly, the incidence of obesity is also much greater among low SES populations [ 32 ]. The costs of obesity in the U.S., when limited to lost productivity alone, have been projected to equate to USD 66 billion annually [ 33 ]. Accessible, 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.

Preventive Initiatives within A Universal Healthcare Model

Beyond providing insurance coverage for a substantial, uninsured, and largely unhealthy segment of society—and thereby reducing disparities and unequal access to care among all segments of the population—there is great potential for universal healthcare models to embrace value-based care [ 4 , 20 , 34 ]. Value-based care can be thought of as appropriate and affordable care (tackling wastes), and 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 [ 34 , 35 ]. In line with this, the ACA has worked in parallel with population-level health programs such as the Healthy People Initiative by targeting modifiable determinants of health including physical activity, obesity, and environmental quality, among others [ 36 ]. Given that a universal healthcare plan would force the government to pay for costly care and treatments related to complications resulting from preventable, non-communicable chronic diseases, the government may be more incentivized to (i) offer primary prevention of chronic disease risk prior to the onset of irreversible complications, and (ii) promote wide-spread preventive efforts across multiple societal domains. It is also worth acknowledging here that the national public health response to the novel Coronavirus-19 virus is a salient and striking contemporary example of a situation in which there continues to be a need to expeditiously coordinate multiple levels of policy, care, and prevention.

Preventive measures lessen costs associated with an uninsured and/or unhealthy population [ 37 ]. For example, investing USD 10 per person annually in community-based programs aimed at combatting physical inactivity, poor nutrition, and smoking in the U.S. could save more than USD 16 billion annually within five years, equating to a return of USD 5.60 for every dollar spent [ 38 ]. Another recent analysis suggests that if 18% more U.S. elementary-school children participated in 25 min of physical activity three times per week, savings attributed to medical costs and productivity would amount to USD 21.9 billion over their lifetime [ 39 ]. Additionally, simple behavioral changes can have major clinical implications. For example, simply brisk walking for 30 min per day (≥15 MET-hours/week) has been associated with a 50% reduction in type II diabetes [ 40 ]. While universal healthcare does not necessarily mean that health policies supporting prevention will be enacted, it may be more likely to promote healthy (i) lifestyle behaviors (e.g., physical activity), (ii) environmental factors (e.g., safe, green spaces in low and middle-income communities), and (iii.) policies (e.g., banning sweetened beverages in public schools) compared to a non-inclusive system [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

Nordic nations provide an example of inclusive healthcare coupled with multi-layered preventive efforts [ 41 ]. In this model, all citizens are given the same comprehensive healthcare while social determinants of health are targeted. This includes “mobilizing and coordinating a large number of players in society,” which encourages cooperation among “players” including municipal political bodies, voluntary organizations, and educational institutions [ 41 ]. Developmental and infrastructural contributions from multiple segments of society to a healthcare system may also 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 ]. Such coordinated efforts within the Nordic model have translated to positive health outcomes. For example, the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index provides an overall score of 0–100 (0 being the worst) for healthcare access and quality across 195 countries and reflects rates of 32 preventable causes of death. Nordic nations had an average HAQ score of 95.4, with four of the five nations achieving scores within the top 10 worldwide [ 42 ]. Though far more heterogenous compared to Nordic nations, (e.g., culturally, geographically, racially, etc.), the U.S. had a score of 89 (29th overall) [ 42 ]. To provide further context, other industrialized nations, which are more comparable to the U.S. than Nordic nations, also ranked higher than the U.S. including Germany (92, 19th overall), Canada (94, 14th overall), Switzerland (96, 7th overall), and the Netherlands (96, 3rd overall) [ 42 ].

4. Conclusions

Non-inclusive, inequitable systems limit quality healthcare access to those who can afford it or have employer-sponsored insurance. These policies exacerbate health disparities by failing to prioritize preventive measures at the environmental, policy, and individual level. Low SES segments of the population are particularly vulnerable within a healthcare system that does not prioritize affordable care for all or address important determinants of health. Failing to prioritize comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all members of society and straying further from prevention will harm the health and economy of the U.S. While there are undoubtedly great economic costs associated with universal healthcare in the U.S., we argue that in the long-run, these costs will be worthwhile, and will eventually be offset by a healthier populace whose health is less economically burdensome. Passing of the Obama-era ACA was a positive step forward as evident by the decline in uninsured U.S. citizens (estimated 7–16.4 million) and Medicare’s lower rate of spending following the legislation [ 43 ]. The U.S. must resist the current political efforts to dislodge the inclusive tenets of the Affordable Care Act. Again, this is not to suggest that universal healthcare will be a cure-all, as social determinants of health must also be addressed. However, addressing these determinants will take time and universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens is needed now. Only through universal and inclusive healthcare will we be able to pave an economically sustainable path towards true public health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Z., Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; writing-original draft preparation, G.Z.; writing-review and editing, Z.Y.K., J.B.M., and L.S.; supervision, L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

Should the Government Provide Health Care Argumentative Essay Example

We all get sick once in a while and sometimes we face high and unexpected costs due to our sickness.Such sickness may include a broken leg or so on. Health care covers for sumptuous and costly medical treatments but not all Americans can afford it.Some people believe that healthcare should be a right available to all people but not all think so. All Americans should have the right to health care no matter who they are.

There are many reasons why people need the right to health care.One reason is because providing citizens with healthcare causes them to miss work less . Researchers at the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania discovered that workers with health care miss fewer work days than workers without health care.Another reason is that a right to health care could preserve lives. People could be saved from deadly diseases when they receive health care.Lastly,the right to healthcare could stop medical bankruptcies. According to the National Bankruptcy Forum, medical debt is the #1 reason people file for bankruptcy in the United States. 

Of course there are people who dissent. They argue that the right to health care is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.They additionally might argue that a right to health care could increment the US debt and deficit.Lastly, they may even argue providing a right to health care could raise taxes because the cost of coverage has to be paid.This is not the case.

Firstly,the argument that the right to health care is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution is incorrect because the founding documents of the United States provide do support for a right to health care.The purpose of the US Constitution, is to "promote the general welfare"of the people. If this is the case, why not promote health care? Secondly, the argument that there will be an increase in the United States debt and deficit is also wrong because with proper planning, we can decrease the debt and deficit caused by healthcare.Lastly, the argument that providing a right to health care could raise taxes is also wrong because higher taxes will give proper healthcare to the workers, who will get sick less often, allowing them to be able to contribute to the economy more.This will cause a boost in the economy.

It is clear that all americans should have the right to healthcare.First, access to health care saves lives.Second, it causes workers to be sick less often.Third, the right to health care could stop medical bankruptcies. The United states should provide healthcare to its citizens.

Related Samples

• Research Paper Example: Primary Progressive Aphasia
• Skin Cancer Essay Example
• Healthcare Essay Example: Public and Private
• Why Should We Eat Healthy Food Essay Example
• Why I Want to Become a Registered Nurse Essay Example
• Essay Sample on Stigma in Mental Illness
• Essay Sample on You Choose: Vaccines or Medication
• Clinical Problems in the workplace Essay Example
• Racism, Sexism, and Lack of Respect for People With Mental Disabilities in the Book Of Mice and Men Essay Example
• Personal Narrative Essay: Why I Want to Be An Allergy Specialist

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Should the Government Provide Health Care? Research Paper Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1278

Hire a Writer for Custom Research Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In America, healthcare has primarily been provided by the private sector with minimum government intervention which is quite a contrast to many other developed countries and even developing ones like Cuba. If we analyze the priorities of the President Obama Administration, government-mandated healthcare system, usually called Obamacare, has arguably been the administration’s greatest priority in terms of domestic issues. Some even speculate President Obama may want his legacy to be defined by Obamacare more than anything else because the issue of universal healthcare system has been unsuccessfully tackled by some former U.S. Presidents as well. There are both supporters and critics of Obamacare which are usually divided on ideological lines. A careful analysis of the benefits of Obamacare as well as evidence from the rest of the world should convince Americans that the benefits of Obamacare will far outweigh the costs, both in economic and social terms.

U.S. Government should provide healthcare because healthcare is a basic human right, just as education, food, and housing are. The U.S. Government plays a major role in the provision of educational services in the country, especially until high school and similarly, there are government programs such as food stamps and low-cost housing to take care of those at the lowest levels of economic hierarchy. Healthcare is no different than these basic rights of access to education, food, and housing, thus, the government has an ethical obligation to ensure no one is denied access to healthcare just because he/she cannot afford it. The millions of Americans without health insurance remind us that the government has failed to provide one of the basic rights to many of its citizens and it is even more of an embarrassment given the fact that it has happened in the largest economy in the world.

The U.S. Government should also provide healthcare because it will help promote more responsible attitudes towards healthcare in the U.S. The healthcare plan will add millions of Americans to the insurance plan without which healthcare costs can be quite high. Being in the plan will increase the probability of an average American going for regular medical checkups which may help identify potential healthcare problems and treat them in a timely fashion. This will also help reduce the overall healthcare costs because costs of treatment at later stages of diseases are usually quite higher than costs of early detection and treatment. In addition, an average American will also be less likely to ignore minor symptoms of potential health issues if he/she has an insurance plan. Costs are important variables in decisions made by an average person and those with limited means are even more sensitive to financial aspects of the decisions. If one knows his/her insurance plan will cover health checkup, he/she is more likely to adopt responsible attitudes towards his/her health.

The U.S. Government should also provide healthcare because it will put more power in the hands of American people as opposed to healthcare providers who have historically enjoyed quite high negotiating power. Under Obamacare, Americans under 19 years of age will not be denied healthcare insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Americans will also be able to use their parents’ plan until the age of 26. Insurance providers will also have greater accountability towards those whose healthcare payments may have been denied. The U.S. Government healthcare plan will also eliminate lifetime limits on most benefits which is especially important because Americans are living longer, like the rest of the world. Insurance companies will also have reduced pricing power which has traditionally contributed towards soaring healthcare costs as they will have to justify unreasonable rate increases (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services).

The U.S. Government should also provide healthcare insurance because the private sector experiment has mostly failed when it comes to healthcare provision. It is true that private sector is more efficient than the public sector but for that to happen, certain conditions need to exist such as competition, accountability, and free flow of information. If we analyze the healthcare sector, it has only been private in name only which explains the operational inefficiencies as well as soaring healthcare costs over the years. An article in Harvard Business Review took a detailed look at the U.S. healthcare system and explained why healthcare system has mostly been a failure in the U.S despite less government intervention as compared to other countries. The article, co-authored by legendary Michael Porter, claimed that physicians have little or no accountability for quality of healthcare they provide, physicians are protected from competition from other physicians, patients have access to few or inadequate information sources, and the industry players such as insurance providers engage in collusive behavior (Porter and Teisberg). Thus, it is not a surprise why the healthcare system in our neighboring Canada is so much more efficient than ours. A study done on American and Canadian healthcare systems found that per capita insurance overhead in the U.S. was nearly five times the Canadian rate at $259 as opposed to Canada’s $49 in 1999. Per capita hospital administration cost was nearly three times the Canadian rate in the U.S. at $315 as opposed to Canada’s $103 during the same period (Rashford). The U.S. Government healthcare plan will introduce efficiencies because it will increase competition as well as accountability levels. In addition, the insurance providers will also have tougher negotiator in the form of U.S. Government.

One of the major assertions by the critics of the Obamacare is that it is socialist in nature which could not have been more misguiding. Socialism is an economic system in which th government owns and controls means of production (Heilbroner). Obamacare is not government taking over the operations of healthcare providers including insurance companies but only imposing greater controls and monitoring systems to improve consumer rights and introduce greater competition and accountability. In other words, the healthcare system has primarily existed as a private sector in name only and the government is now introducing conditions that make it a private sector in essence also. The private sector will now have less pricing power and will be forced to improve operations and quality of service. If the critics believe government intervention in any form is socialism, then not only the U.S. but every other country on the planet has always been socialist. The U.S. Government plays more role in the provision of education, at least until high school which should also count as socialism by the same measure. Similarly, Medicaid and Medicare Systems should also be count as socialism. U.K., Canada, and Australia which we consider free market systems, should also be count as socialism because it not anything else, all these three countries have universal healthcare system, not unlike the one being championed by President Obama’s Administration.

It is clear that U.S. Government healthcare system will be good for the country because it will introduce greater competition and accountability among healthcare industry players and improve patients’ rights. It will also introduce millions of Americans to the healthcare insurance plans and promote healthier healthcare habits among them. The critics dismiss Obamacare as socialism but by the same criteria, free education and low-cost housing should also be considered socialism. Obamacare is not socialism but actually an attempt to improve the healthcare industry that has been quite inefficient historically as evident by soaring healthcare costs in the U.S. as compared to other developed countries.

Works Cited

Heilbroner, Robert. Socialism. 30 April 2014. Web.

Porter, Michael E. and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg. “Redefining Competition in Healthcare.” Harvard Business Review June 2004: 65-76. Print.

Rashford, Marleise. “A Universal Healthcare System: Is It Right for the United States?” Nursing Forum January-March 2007: 3-11. Print

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. About the Law. 30 April 2014. Web.

Stuck with your Research Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Events of 9/11, Research Paper Example

Global Warming and the Rise in Sea Level, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Research Paper Samples & Examples

The risk of teenagers smoking, research paper example.

Pages: 11

Words: 3102

Impacts on Patients and Healthcare Workers in Canada, Research Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1839

Death by Neurological Criteria, Research Paper Example

Words: 2028

Ethical Considerations in End-Of-Life Care, Research Paper Example

Words: 1391

Ethical Dilemmas in Brain Death, Research Paper Example

Words: 2005

Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms, Research Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 631

Health care for all Essay

It is the government’s responsibility to provide healthcare for everyone. Whether communism, capitalism or otherwise, access to quality healthcare is an inalienable right for every citizen, regardless of age, economic status or race. Despite the fact that many people are covered under government funded programs such as Medicare, there are millions of citizens who do not have access to this right, due to the shortcomings of these government funded programs.

Most first world countries have single payer programs. In these programs, the government is the single payer where the amount of premium is concurrent with the salaries. As such, despite the fact that every citizen pays own health insurance premium, they spend far much less and are guaranteed access to quality healthcare.

Contrary to popular belief, universal health care is not an expensive project. Many analysts fear that it would add to government expenditure on healthcare, yet economic experts argues that with discipline and diligent political leadership, it is a plan that cannot only save government billions of dollar but also increase profit for private healthcare providers and insurers.

So real is this assumption that, private healthcare providers as well as healthcare insurance companies are willing to negotiate with the government on the possibility of universal healthcare. Although health care cost is soaring, the government needs to actualize universal healthcare plan to improve healthcare provision as well as consolidate other gains.

There are alarming statistics that the United States government is currently spending more than any other country on healthcare per person. So much is the spending that health care budget has surpassed the amount of money that the country spends on food.

This reality has two implications: that health care is important to a countries economy and that there is need for the government to think of ways to provide universal health care. Despite the fact that the government spends about $2 trillion on health care annually, the huge budget is not because the country is saddled with diseases.

A reports by research firm, MGI indicates that the ever increasing cost of health care is as a result of not harmonizing payout of health care by the government, employers and insurances to a single payout system (McKinsey & Co paras 1, 2). McKinsey & Co continues to argue that there is a vey high demand and supply for health care, but that most of the citizens do not have access to quality services (para 3).

This is despite the huge amounts spent every year in health care provision. MGI conclude that a single payout system has a number of advantages to the health care consumer as it will provide necessary regulations to streamline health care into a properly managed industry. It will also provide further incentives for growth. This acts as a major opportunity for health care cost efficiency and improvement. Overall, quality health care is brought closer to all citizens (McKinsey & Co para 4).

Analysts have argued that a universal health care plan has major obstacles. This assumption have been backed by high ranking politicians who argue that the plan would be too expensive for the government to carry out, that it is an unworthy political capital that would not generate desirable political returns and that private health care insurers stand to loose significantly. This assumption has several weaknesses. The assumption is not based on hard facts and furthermore, health care is not all about politics but the health of a nation.

The assumption however, is not very far from the truth but can be overcome, if there is strong, intelligent, meticulous and diligent political planning and leadership. A dedicated political leadership will see it as government concern to explain to the citizens that, even though a single payout plan does require additional revenue from tax, the extra tax spending would be significantly compensated by a huge reduction in private insurance expenditure.

The objections by healthcare private insurers are reasonably acceptable as they are fear that they will loose billions in profits every year. However, like the notion by politicians that it is not a worthy political gamble, the fear by private insurers is not founded on hard facts. Economic analyses of a single payout system conclude that having a single payout system enlarges the economic size of health care as it increases consumers as well as health care budget.

Therefore, private insurers will be informed that their fears are unfounded and that actually, a single payout system will increase their share of earnings. This conclusion is also based on the argument that as the pie gets larger, everyone gets a larger portion of the pie (Frank paras 5 to 10). Thus, the more need for the government to provide healthcare for all

In light of the new findings that there are bigger benefits for all, the role of private insurers in the provision of a single payout medical plan has come under scrutiny. Since time immemorial, private health care insurers have strongly objected to the plan.

But of late the private health care providers have accented to the reality that there needs to be radical changes in the health care sector to curtail the ever increasing cost of health care which do not necessarily lead to improved quality and quantity. Health care insurers have had a change of heart and want to be part of the single payout system.

Their softening of hearts is based on the assumptions convictions of president Barrack Obama that this plan needs to be flexible to accommodate all stakeholders and consolidate all gains from all sectors of the American health care industry. President Obama in his universal healthcare plan argues that universal health care means that all parties play a role to the success of the plan.

Quite humorously, but realistically nevertheless, president Obama called this approach the “common sense rules of the road” as universal health care plan would ensure that, among other benefits, there is no discrimination to people with preexisting condition to getting health care insurance (New York Times para 30 to 34). Following this conviction, the government thus needs to provide health care to all as it is not only practical but also necessary and beneficial.

There are more reasons why the government should provide health care for all. Under the universal health care scheme, it will become easier to provide preventative health care for a majority of people. Universal healthcare ensures that more people access health care services and as such consumers will have an increased awareness of their healthcare needs and seek prevention early enough.

This argument is based on studies which confirm that a higher percentage of people with health care insurance are aware of their health conditions than people without. With information about personal health, people will be able to seek preventative cure early enough at a lower cost and as such reducing the overall cost of healthcare (International Debate Education Association and Trapp 124).

The current health care programs, despite being backed by the government have significant shortcomings. Under such programs, only limited physicians offer services and as such patients are limited on the number of doctors they can consult. This mean that patients who buy into the programs are forced to abandon their personal doctors, if the personal doctors are not part of the plan. Furthermore, patients have to seek approval before the consult physicians under this scheme.

As such, these government sponsored program, instead of expanding healthcare, tend to limit it further. Moreover, the programs are discriminating in terms of age, economic s and employment statuses. If a person loses a job, then they also lose the health benefits (International Debate Education Association and Trapp 124). As such, there needs to be a universal healthcare for all, which guarantees access to medical services regardless of age, income and employment status.

Universal health care also has benefits to employers. Currently it is calculated that the US employers spend more than US$ 1500 for every worker in healthcare cost every year. It is also estimated that the cost of healthcare to employees goes up by at least 14 % every year. This is putting an unmanageable burden on employees.

This kind of rise in heath care cost is unsustainable. As such the government needs to come to the rescue of employers and save the American business (Sherrow 63). With such costs taken care off, the American employer will thus be able to offer more job opportunities

Universal healthcare program will also boost the economy in a variety of ways. With universal health care, the American employee will feel more secure and as scuh will not be tied to a particular employer for the fear of loosing the employer based health benefits. As such employees will be able to make more flexible career and professional choices that are not tired to health care benefits.

As such many people will gain the confidence of leaving their jobs and starting private business, without necessarily having to loose health benefits. While these encourage more flexible movement of professional, it also help boost the economy as more people will gain the confidence to move away from formal employment and to small business (Sherrow 63). This thus compels the government to provide universal healthcare.

The government needs to provide universal healthcare for everyone. Health care is currently costing the government too much money yet it does not guarantee ease of access to heath care by a significant portion of American citizenry.

As such the government needs to harmonize it heath care plans and provide a comprehensive single payer system in which it is the single payer. Despite being an expensive venture, universal health care guarantees social economic as well as professional benefits. These benefits will lead to the general improvement of the standard of living as well as boost the economy.

Works Cited

Frank, Robert. A health care plan so simple, even Stephen Colbert couldn’t simplify it . 2007. Web.

International Debate Education Association and Trapp, Robert. The debatabase book: A must-have guide for successful debate. New York: IDEA. 2009. Print.

McKinsey & Co. Accounting for the cost of health care in the United States . 2011. Web.

New York Times. Health Care Reform. 2011. Web.

Sherrow, Victoria. Universal healthcare . New York: InfoBase Publishing. 2009. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 3). Health care for all. https://ivypanda.com/essays/health-care-for-all/

"Health care for all." IvyPanda , 3 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/health-care-for-all/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Health care for all'. 3 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Health care for all." January 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/health-care-for-all/.

1. IvyPanda . "Health care for all." January 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/health-care-for-all/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Health care for all." January 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/health-care-for-all/.

• The Efficacy of Maryland’s “All-Payer” Model
• Medicare and Health Care Payer Solutions
• Point to the Destination: Switch by Heath & Heath
• The World Heath Organization
• The Single-Payer Healthcare System and Improve Health Insurance Availability
• The "Who Killed Homer?" Book by Hanson & Heath
• Heath’s Market Failure Theory: The Business Ethics Issues
• How Poverty Contributes to Poor Heath
• Volkswagen Company’s Dividend Policy
• Nina Pop and Skylar Heath: Introductory Biographies
• The Role of Public Service Commission in Canada
• Africa Regional Conference: Should Democracy Be Promoted in Africa?
• Why did Tunisia and Egypt’s governments fall? Will they become democracies?
• The Spread of Democracy
• Trustee vs. Delegate Models of Representation

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

What public k-12 teachers want americans to know about teaching.

Illustrations by Hokyoung Kim

At a time when most teachers are feeling stressed and overwhelmed in their jobs, we asked 2,531 public K-12 teachers this open-ended question:

If there’s one thing you’d want the public to know about teachers, what would it be?

We also asked Americans what they think about teachers to compare with teachers’ perceptions of how the public views them.

Related: What’s It Like To Be a Teacher in America Today?

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand what public K-12 teachers would like Americans to know about their profession. We also wanted to learn how the public thinks about teachers.

For the open-end question, we surveyed 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. The teachers surveyed are members of RAND’s American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative panel of public K-12 school teachers recruited through MDR Education. Survey data is weighted to state and national teacher characteristics to account for differences in sampling and response to ensure they are representative of the target population.

Overall, 96% of surveyed teachers provided an answer to the open-ended question. Center researchers developed a coding scheme categorizing the responses, coded all responses, and then grouped them into the six themes explored in the data essay.

For the questions for the general public, we surveyed 5,029 U.S. adults from Nov. 9 to Nov. 16, 2023. The adults surveyed are members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative online survey panel. Panel members are randomly recruited through probability-based sampling, and households are provided with access to the Internet and hardware if needed. To ensure that the results of this survey reflect a balanced cross section of the nation, the data is weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, age, education, race and ethnicity and other categories.

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, the teacher survey methodology and the general public survey methodology .

Most of the responses to the open-ended question fell into one of these six themes:

Teaching is a hard job

About half of teachers (51%) said they want the public to know that teaching is a difficult job and that teachers are hardworking. Within this share, many mentioned that they have roles and responsibilities in the classroom besides teaching, which makes the job stressful. Many also talked about working long hours, beyond those they’re contracted for.

“Teachers serve multiple roles other than being responsible for teaching curriculum. We are counselors, behavioral specialists and parents for students who need us to fill those roles. We sacrifice a lot to give all of ourselves to the role as teacher.”

– Elementary school teacher

“The amount of extra hours that teachers have to put in beyond the contractual time is ridiculous. Arriving 30 minutes before and leaving an hour after is just the tip of the iceberg. … And as far as ‘having summers off,’ most of August is taken up with preparing materials for the upcoming school year or attending three, four, seven days’ worth of unpaid development training.”

– High school teacher

Teachers care about their students

The next most common theme: 22% of teachers brought up how fulfilling teaching is and how much teachers care about their students. Many gave examples of the hardships of teaching but reaffirmed that they do their job because they love the kids and helping them succeed. 

“We are passionate about what we do. Every child we teach is important to us and we look out for them like they are our own.”

– Middle school teacher

“We are in it for the kids, and the most incredible moments are when children make connections with learning.”

Teachers are undervalued and disrespected

Some 17% of teachers want the public to know that they feel undervalued and disrespected, and that they need more public support. Some mentioned that they are well-educated professionals but are not treated as such. And many teachers in this category responded with a general plea for support from the public, which they don’t feel they’re getting now.

“We feel undervalued. The public and many parents of my students treat me and my peers as if we do not know as much as they do, as if we are uneducated.”

“The public attitudes toward teachers have been degrading, and it is making it impossible for well-qualified teachers to be found. People are simply not wanting to go into the profession because of public sentiments.”

Teachers are underpaid

A similar share of teachers (15%) want the public to know that teachers are underpaid. Many teachers said their salary doesn’t account for the effort and care they put into their students’ education and believe that their pay should reflect this.

“We are sorely underpaid for the amount of hours we work and the education level we have attained.”

Teachers need support and resources from government and administrators

About one-in-ten teachers (9%) said they need more support from the government, their administrators and other key stakeholders. Many mentioned working in understaffed schools, not having enough funding and paying for supplies out of pocket. Some teachers also expressed that they have little control over the curriculum that they teach.

“The world-class education we used to be proud of does not exist because of all the red tape we are constantly navigating. If you want to see real change in the classroom, advocate for smaller class sizes for your child, push your district to cap class sizes at a reasonable level and have real, authentic conversations with your child’s teacher about what is going on in the classroom if you’re curious.”

Teachers need more support from parents

Roughly the same share of teachers (8%) want the public to know that teachers need more support from parents, emphasizing that the parent-teacher relationship is strained. Many view parents as partners in their child’s education and believe that a strong relationship improves kids’ overall social and emotional development.

“Teachers help students to reach their potential. However, that job is near impossible if parents/guardians do not take an active part in their student’s education.”

How the U.S. public views teachers

While the top response from teachers in the open-ended question is that they want the public to know that teaching is a hard job, most Americans already see it that way. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say being a public K-12 teacher is harder than most other jobs, with 33% saying it’s a lot harder.

And about three-quarters of Americans (74%) say teachers should be paid more than they are now, including 39% who say teachers should be paid a lot more.

Americans are about evenly divided on whether the public generally looks up to (32%) or down on (30%) public K-12 teachers. Some 37% say Americans neither look up to or down on public K-12 teachers.

In addition to the open-ended question about what they want the public to know about them, we asked teachers how much they think most Americans trust public K-12 teachers to do their job well. We also asked the public how much they trust teachers. Answers differ considerably.

Nearly half of public K-12 teachers (47%) say most Americans don’t trust teachers much or at all. A third say most Americans trust teachers some, and 18% say the public trusts teachers a great deal or a fair amount.

In contrast, a majority of Americans (57%) say they do trust public K-12 teachers to do their job well a great deal or a fair amount. About a quarter (26%) say they trust teachers some, and 17% say they don’t trust teachers much or at all.

Related: About half of Americans say public K-12 education is going in the wrong direction

How the public’s views differ by party

There are sizable party differences in Americans’ views of teachers. In particular, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say:

• They trust teachers to do their job well a great deal or a fair amount (70% vs. 44%)
• Teaching is a lot or somewhat harder when compared with most other jobs (77% vs. 59%)
• Teachers should be paid a lot or somewhat more than they are now (86% vs. 63%)

In their own words

Below, we have a selection of quotes that describe what teachers want the public to know about them and their profession.

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Home — Essay Samples — Geography & Travel — Travel and Tourism Industry — The History of Moscow City

The History of Moscow City

• Categories: Russia Travel and Tourism Industry

About this sample

Words: 614 |

Published: Feb 12, 2019

Words: 614 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Geography & Travel

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2662 words

6 pages / 3010 words

2 pages / 1057 words

4 pages / 2143 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Travel and Tourism Industry

Travelling is a topic that has been debated for centuries, with some arguing that it is a waste of time and money, while others believe that it is an essential part of life. In this essay, I will argue that travelling is not [...]

Travelling has always been an exhilarating experience for me, and my recent trip to Rome was no exception. The ancient city, with its rich history and breathtaking architecture, left a lasting impression on me. It was a journey [...]

Traveling is an enriching experience that allows individuals to explore new cultures, meet people from different backgrounds, and broaden their perspectives. In the summer of 2019, I had the opportunity to embark on an amazing [...]

Traveling has always been a significant part of my life. From a young age, I have been fortunate enough to explore different cultures, experience new traditions, and immerse myself in the beauty of our world. My passion for [...]

When planning a business trip all aspects and decisions rely heavily on the budget set by the company for the trip. Once Sandfords have confirmed the location careful consideration should be used to choose the travel method and [...]

Place is one of the most complicated issues in geographical studies. Place refers to both sides of human and physical geography. There is not clear understand about the place and sometimes refer to local, area, point, region, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free