As the world starts to evolve and new developments start to surface, we cannot be distracted by the threats hidden in plain sight. Our health is vital to the future we build day by day, and thus all humans should be insured in order to help prevent downfall. One cannot forget that just because we progress pathogens progress as well and our health could be at risk if we are not careful. Many countries have therefore implemented healthcare that will cover all who need it. This is called Universal Healthcare. Universal healthcare does not mean that you are covered for everything, but rather is seen as a system that provides quality medical services to all citizens.  A system of such would be and is sought in a big and very developed country like the United States of America. Just having health insurance in America doesn’t mean that you are adequately insured, a system such as Universal Healthcare would, however, provide all citizens with the quality of insurance they deserve and need. Providing universal healthcare to all Americans will help the economy to thrive, more people would receive coverage, doctor-patient relationships can be maintained easier and we will all save money.

 

As people hear the words Universal Healthcare one might think of the word “free” “accessible” “easy” and although most of these are right, Universal Healthcare isn’t “free”; the universal healthcare that would be the best fit for the USA would be the single-payer system in which “…there are no private insurance companies, to begin with. The government alone authorizes and pays for health benefits” (Torrey, 1), in opposition to what we currently have which is a mix of private and public and thus increases the cost for healthcare dramatically. According to Conley Nicholas taxpayers in the United States picked up 65% of this country’s total healthcare coverage, about $2.1 trillion in taxes, and in addition to those $2.1 trillion there are additional for each of us also spends on our private healthcare plans every month, combined with how much we have to pay on personal procedures that aren’t totally covered by that plan (1). Why should we have to pay $2.1 trillion and then an additional annual average of $2,196 – $4,968 (Gaille, 1) on health insurance, which are just the basic costs of healthcare, if there is a way to cut costs are provide all American citizens with quality insurance for less in a single-payer Universal Healthcare coverage. This idea is highly seen by many, yet one of the biggest opposers is the government. Every election year we hear a new idea on how healthcare should be inducted. The journal The red and the blue: how the candidates would reform U.S. health care: universal health care versus the private market. Just another way of saying Democrat versus Republican? by Veach shows this debate. Once again we just hear ideas from three Republicans and three Democrats. The one sentence that spoke that the government uses healthcare as a pawn for voters “The healthcare platform is just part of what will drive the voters” (1). It speaks volumes and just shows how this important subject is not being taken serious, although it should be. Why should we use this important necessity as a pawn for voters if it can be a way of saving thousands is not millions fo the government?

 

Universal Health Care won’t be a success for just the uncovered citizen in need of healthcare, but will also have a long-lasting and positive impact on the economy as a whole. Evidence-based on an experiment shows that “Improving health service coverage in [these] countries depends on the availability, accessibility, and capacity of health workers to deliver high quality people-centred integrated care” (Reid, 1). But what does this exactly mean? Well, it’s simple; in order to be able to offer Universal Healthcare, we should be available for patients, accessible to all and have the numbers of healthcare workers needed to deliver this high-quality care people need and deserve. However, in order to deliver this quality of healthcare needed for the UHC (Universal Health Care) to be enforced, there needs to be an influx of more healthcare personnel. This will then lead to a domino effect. More healthcare personal leads to a higher capacity and more accessibility and availability as Reid talks about in his journal. There will always be a demand in healthcare workers, and this demand should be represented more and highlight the “the importance of investments from both public and private sectors in health worker education” (Reid, 1). Reason being that jobs in the medical field and healthcare field are expensive. Yet, we cannot continue these prices on educating more people in these crucial fields if the prices of education and accumulated debt outweigh the want to approach these jobs. In addition to that, employment increases the GDP of a country. Therefore, if we fill the open healthcare jobs with more people by investing in health worker education from the public and private sector as Reid said, we will be filling jobs, while raising the GDP of the USA and providing the “ the availability, accessibility, and capacity of health workers” (Reid, 1) in order to be one step closer to UHC and an economy with a higher GDP.

Thus, converting to a UHC would not be one day to the next decision and movement, but would take work and effort by the government and the citizens of America. By developing a single-payer UHC the healthcare industry would simultaneously gain/encourage people to join the health field and thus decrease the need for healthcare workers and decrease the stress on the doctors and nurses in the field by having more coverage. 

 

The most important factor in this UHC would be that all citizens will be covered, no matter if they have a job and insurance from their employer or not. There will be basic coverage for all citizens that will: lower overall health care costs; lower administrative costs; promote standardized service; create a healthier workforce; prevent future social costs; and will guide people to make healthier choices. UHC will be able to cover all citizens of America by letting the costs of standard healthcare be paid by the taxes. This will be established by allowing services being government-owned and by the service providers to be government employees. Paying UHC with taxes many times raises alarm to the citizens of America since taxes are already so high, and many may ask: “Why am I paying other people’s healthcare if I could only pay mine?”. People may not pay more taxes in order to help this single-payer UHC, and how can one nation expect something this important and basic for every person’s health to just be given without any sacrifice? In addition to that, people won’t have to pay the incredibly high charges of public or private healthcare one has to pay now since one will receive UHC. 

 

Everyone will be insured for their essential needs which would include:  doctor visits, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drugs, and medical supply costs (PNHP, 1). By ensuring these needs the US will see an improvement in their lower-income families, this is because they will have access to medical care when they need help, rather than waiting until it’s significantly bad if not even fatal. Doctors will be ensured that they will get paid for their services for all their patients, and patients will be ensured with quality services no matter what. Single-payer UHC will ensure all Americans and have a positive effect on the nation’s health in a way we would not see with the catastrophic and overpriced health policies we have now, which only pumps out money from people’s incomes with low expectations and additional hidden costs. 

 

The whole premise of this not just to ensure all Americans, but to also save money. The problem we face in American society at this time is not just the overpriced rates of private and public healthcare charges, but also the amount of money the government puts into healthcare each year. The fact is that the United States pays its doctors a lot, which is also one of the main reasons that healthcare is so high. The average American doctor gets paid $230’000 on average while the average among non-US doctors is around $129’000 (Whitacker, 1). However, why is the life expectancy in the US  nowhere near first place for life expectancy (15th out of 34) or quality of care despite all that spending on doctors and healthcare?  (Whitacker 1)

But that is just the tip of the iceberg, reasons also include:

• Americans spend 160% more on drugs
• The US has a big obesity problem
• Hospital costs in the US are the highest in the world

(Whiteacker, 1)

All these problems contribute to high government spending and insurance prices.

One might say that by just adding laws won’t prevent obesity, but that is obvious. The meaning behind this is to cut the unnecessary costs. UHC won’t make all the private insurances disappear, but will rather be there as an addition to your already existing government-issued insurance. UHC doesn’t mean 100% insured, because why should the government help finance liposuction if it isn’t essential. By adding the needed drug cost per person in the US it would be $6’826 per person, which is already $1’851 less than under the conditions today. As one continues to calculate one ends up with the US saving 600 billion overall, or about 21.2% of the total cost of healthcare (Whiteacker, 1).

600 billion dollars is a lot of money that could be used for something else rather than healthcare that will be provided by the government and a private sector which would be observed closely so they don’t overcharge but would not be necessary anymore. Because why pay too much for a 30th rank in morbidity and mortality in the world (Galvani, 1)?

 

However, just going on data isn’t going to be the best for dealing with a vital subject such as UHC, so I took it upon myself to talk to people at the front line especially during the times we are in right, now dealing with COVID-19. I had the privilege to interview Dr Erik  Romanelli, an Assistant Professor of Clinical Anesthesiology in NYC. As I asked in how many times he has encountered patients in need of help, yet thought of healthcare I was very pleased to hear that, although he encounters patients as such on a daily basis, that does not stop him from doing the job. Dr Romanelli goes even further saying: “We would never turn anyone away.  Everyone gets the same quality and level of care regardless of their ability to pay” and concludes by explaining that he could very well be putting himself at substantial risk from a legal standpoint if I were to turn away patients who are in need of emergent care. Dr Romanelli, therefore, could be seen as the medical workforce Reid was talking about in his journal, Achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC): Dominance analysis across 183 countries highlights the importance of strengthening health workforce, he is very efficient and provides the same quality and level of care every patient deserves, he is a huge factor in achieving UHC. However, just as Reid said, there are not enough healthcare providers, and Romanelli also spoke about that during our interview. When I asked him if he believed healthcare to be a necessity rather than a privilege for all, Romanelli discussed the complexities of these insurances acting as the middleman, and the issue of not having enough primary care providers, since medical school is so expensive and many go into specialized care to cover debt accumulated. He understands that if we do not tackle these issues UHC will never be achieved. 

All these issues Romanelli revealed have once again been issues Reid has talked about. However, he came up with a solution too: investment. We as a country have to invest in providing and educating more primary care workers. This would bolster the healthcare workforce and cut down the debt many doctors accumulate during their many years of schooling. 

Being able to correspond with Dr Romanelli has been very insightful and has offered a deeper sight into the healthcare field. He understood what had to be done in order to provide all Americans with healthcare and believed that Americans should have access to healthcare, but before that happened issues had to be solved first.

 

A nation that can trust its healthcare system and the people providing such, is a healthy and strong nation in mind and body. One can’t expect a nation to succeed without a strong workforce. In the USA the single-payer UHC would provide such strength and help the economy thrive in a way we have never seen. Reid, Dr. Romanelli and many more both see eye to eye on this fact: Everyone deserves to have access to healthcare. So what is the immediate effect of UHC? Galvani the author of California Universal Health Care: An economic stimulus and life-saving proposal put into perfects the words “Universal healthcare improves health outcomes by ensuring that everyone has continuous access to care regardless of pre-existing conditions, ability to pay, or any other factors” (1).

When we look at the situation the world is currently in we can see people dying left and right and this is not the end. After this pandemic, we as a nation should look at the damage done to our economy and come to the consensus of a single-payer UHC. Every citizen deserves to see a primary physician on a healthy period basis. People shouldn’t have to wait until they are ER sick to see a doctor. If there is a problem with your health, you should be able to see a doctor without killing your paycheck doing so. Health is important to survive and keep food on your table, it shouldn’t be in danger. It should be protected.

Citation

  Scholarly articles

Cho, Hoyune E., et al. “Investigating the causal effect of socioeconomic status on quality of care under a universal health insurance system – a marginal structural model approach.” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 19, no. 1, 2019, p. NA. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, https://link-gale-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A610325600/HRCA?u=cuny_ccny&sid=HRCA&xid=613781e3. Accessed 19 Mar. 2020.

Galvani, Alison P et al. “California Universal Health Care Bill: an economic stimulus and life-saving proposal.” Lancet (London, England) vol. 390,10106 (2017): 2012-2014. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32148-7. Acess 5 April 2020.

Reid, Michael, et al. “Achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC): Dominance analysis across 183 countries highlights importance of strengthening health workforce.” PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 3, 2020, p. e0229666. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, +. Accessed 19 Mar. 2020.

Veach, Margaret. “The red and the blue: how the candidates would reform U.S. health care: universal health care versus private market. Just another way of saying Democrat versus Republican?” Healthcare Financial Management, vol. 62, no. 1, Jan. 2008, p. 78+. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine,  bh vc.  Acess 5 April 2020.

 

Popular sources

Tennant, Michael. “COVID-19 Causing Americans to Favor Universal Healthcare, Poll Finds”. New American. 17 March 2020. Web. 18 March 2020. <https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/35154-covid-19-causing-americans-to-favor-universal-healthcare-poll-finds>

Torrey, Trisha. What You Should Know About Universal Health Care Coverage. Verywell Health. February 25, 2020. Web. 30 March 2020. <https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-universal-healthcare-coverage-2615254>

Unknown. About Single Payer. Unknown. Unknown. Web. 14 March 2020. \<https://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/>

Whitacker, Ryan. “How Much Universal Healthcare Would Cost in the US”. Decision Data. 11 November 2015. Web. 14 March 2020. <https://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/>

 

Nonprofit organization interview

Romanelli, Eric. Personal interview. 1 April 2020.