Maintaining a healthy nation will be a step forward in maintaining a wealthy nation due to the fact that healthy people are productive people. The human capital is adversely affected if people’s health is compromised. If healthcare were to be made universal in U. S the government would save much money. The current state is inefficient and ineffective despite the fact that more than 10% of GNP is set aside for healthcare. (Place D, 2005) Companies and entrepreneurs are very cautious on the location of their premises. Since their major motives are profits they establish places where their production costs are minimal.
High costs of medical care may discourage investments. Firms will not shy away from locating their establishments anywhere if healthcare was universal as it would not entail additional costs. Again, quality care would be provided to all regardless their background or orientation. With the current state, doctors can opt for treatment that is cheaper for the poor even though it may not be the best treatment for their condition. If universal health care was established such cases would be very minimal as the ability to pay would not be a condition to treatment.
People who are in dire need of medical attention are denied accessibility to medical services. Insurance firms try to avoid liability by selecting the healthier people and this works against the sick and poor in dire need of medical services. With universal healthcare the use of insurance and their effects would be eliminated. Liberals reject the argument against healthcare on the basis of the high costs it would involve. They site other European countries like the U. K which use or rather spends lesser than what the U. S spends but their levels of accessibility are substantially higher.
Rejecting universal healthcare on the basis of costs involved is therefore not a powerful argument. (Almgren G, 2006). Universal healthcare would reduce the inequalities between the haves and the have-nots as well as increasing health accessibility. The use of progressive taxes could be used to ensure that the poor do not bear a greater burden and thus become worse off. To attain a positive outcome from the universal healthcare system it would also be important to ensure that efficiency and effectiveness are incorporated.
Conservatives and other opponents of universal healthcare system reject such a system because it would see the haves pay for the have-nots health expenses. They strongly oppose the increment of taxes to fund universal health care. They support the current system and further suggest that it only requires improvement or reforms to make it more efficient. Without the finances the poor are more susceptible to chronic illnesses whose effects are tragic because they rarely go for medical check ups. In most case they are for curative care rather than preventive care.
Minority groups for instance people of color who in most cases are in forms of employment where medical coverage is not covered by their employers would have a chance of accessing healthcare despite their financial constraints. With universal healthcare it would be possible to curb preventable diseases as early intervention would be done. Providing Medicaid is not sufficient as it only caters for a small proportion of the needy population. (Cook D, 2004). To ensure comprehensive coverage universal healthcare would best suffice.
Supporters of universal healthcare argue that it has been successful in Canada and hence could be successful in U. S. It is also seen as a cheaper and efficient way of providing comprehensive care. Universal health care would reduce the existing bureaucracies and also eradicate inefficiencies in the health insurance. Consequently accessibility to health care would be increased. Commercialized healthcare systems hinder the poor from accessing healthcare facilities but this can be eliminated with the adoption of universal healthcare. The poor can seek consultations with their doctors more often when it is free than when it is charged.