The Plausibility of Universal Health Care in the United States

Abstract

Though the United States is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the disparities in income are only surpassed by the inequalities in access to health care. Because of the close tie between the health care crisis and the fiscal health of the country as a whole, proposals have been made to introduce universal health care, to adapt existing systems and to support efforts, including what has been deemed "ObamaCare" to move towards greater accountability in obtaining and maintaining health insurance for the millions of uninsured and underinsured. Though most countries in the developed world perceive health care as a basic human right, the United States has yet to determine a way of creating and funding a single-payer universal health care system that will address the inequalities that exist and provide a better option for preventative medicine, interventive medicine, and long-term care.One of the central problems for this country is that our political process is divided ideologically and health care paradigms do not appear to address issues on both sides. While there is support for a national health program that would ensure access to the working poor, fiscal conservatives view this as a system that cannot be afforded and that would expand debt in an uncontrollable manner. In fact, there is a clear division between the patriarchal perspectives of the democrats and the growing Tea Party call for personal responsibility.The following study considers the issue of health care in this country, including the current level of expenditure, the lack of access, comparable international efforts, and even state proposed changes that have shown some success in the implementation of universal health care. This study will focus on the way in which innovation and governance have struggled to determine workable paradigms for health care reform. The focus on a single-payer or universal health care system has not led to successful legislative change, and so elements of both arguments will be considered when addressing the best methods for improving access to care and affordability. A proposed plan will be introduced that will consider the best options for improving the following: 1. Affordability; 2. Access to care; 3. Long-term viability; 4. State and federal cooperation; 5. Distribution of funding or services. The proposed plan will address these issues and present some plausible approaches.

Editor’s Note: Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics (Volume 8 Issue 2)

“…Bajotto [1], investigated the Brazilian peoples' perception of vulnerability using a semi-structured interview format. Boudreau [2] authored a review regarding the issues surrounding the concept of universal health care in the USA. Rodriguez [3] has reviewed the ethical considerations of using CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in non-human organisms.…”

“…While support exists for the introduction of a national health program, the fiscal conservatives view this program as a huge economic burden that cannot be afforded as it would expand the debt in an uncontrolled fashion. Boudreau [2] has authored a review on the factors surrounding the concept of universal health care in the USA.…”

Obstacles and Challenges affecting the move towards Universal Healthcare Coverage in Nigeria

“…They point to the ongoing debate surrounding health reforms in the United States (which might be going the opposite way towards UHC under Obama's ACA and President Biden promising more (Biden, 2021)), echoed elsewhere in the world, where some argue that health is a matter of individual responsibility and that dissenting citizens should not be forced to participate in solidarity-based health programs that require mandatory contributions or support through taxation (Boudreau, 2017;Amadeo, 2020). Regarding the way UHC is financed, critics contend that developing countries are often compelled to comply with directions from international donor bodies, for example, to channel money towards selective interventions, such as the GOBI-FFF program (advocated by UNICEF) rather than investing in a wider range of primary healthcare services (Verrecchia et al, 2018;Reis, 2016;Brearley, 2013;WHO, 2013).…”