Pros And Cons Of Universal Health Care

The topic of universal health care has become a subject of fierce debate in the United States. Whether it is beneficial or harmful to a countries quality of health care is still up in the air, leading the United States down a path of uncertainty when it comes to reviewing their own health care system. Universal health care is known for its unimaginable wait times, poor insurance, outdated medical procedures, and suppressed medical innovations. All of which are things that American citizen will have absolutely no tolerance for, as of today most Americans would rather pay for the world class health care they are already receiving, rather then downgrading their standards of health care to adapt to the social norms of the world. In order for the United States to keep its pristine health care reputation they must stay on top of medical advances and provide their citizens with

quick and efficient treatment, which is something that universal health care is unable to do. Regardless of your view on this topic it is absolutely crucial that the United States looks into other options, rather than universal health care in order to better the many aspects of health care that it offers to its citizens.
Universal health care is something that would never be a good idea to implement within the United States, because Americans are not patient enough to wait for the mediocre care that they will receive from the universal health care system. Most Americans already struggle with the short waiting periods they face today, which is usually no more than a month, depending on its severity. Where according to Bacchus Barua (2017), Senior Economist at the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Health Policy Studies, says that on average, the wait in Canada to see to see a specialist is 20 weeks, and that doesn't even include the initial wait time to see your family physician to gain a referral to see the specialist in the first place. Another, even more shocking observation found by both Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon (2007), both directors at the CATO Institute found that the average wait to receive a much needed heart surgery in Sweden is a astonishing 25 weeks. In comparison, the average wait time to receive a similar procedure in the United States according to Elisabeth Rosenthal (2014), a writer from the New York Times, found that patients in the United States wait on average only 28 days before they receive their treatment. The wait that people in countries that use the universal health care system are absolutely unacceptable, and citizens in the United States would have no tolerance for it.
The weight times that people face in the universal health care system are not benign inconveniences. They not only create additional strain on an already weak body, but they create an unimaginable strain on the income of ill families. For being a health care system that is supposed to give families financial relief and peace of mind knowing that they will always have access to proper health care, it really is unable to provide any of these so called benefits to its people. Keeping that in mind, Barua, in a recent study found that “By combining estimates of the wait between specialist and treatment, the number of patients waiting, average wages and the proportion of patients reporting that waits affected their lives, the estimated cost of waiting for care was $1.7 billion in 2016” (2017, para 3). This statistic is actually quite mind boggling, when you remember that the universal health care system is supposed to make everyone's life better, but how is wasting 1.7 billion benefiting anyone? Unfortunately these aren't even the worst of Barua’s findings, he later states that “By expanding the analysis to include the value of time lost during evenings and weekends, the estimated cost of waiting in 2016 rises to $5.2 billion. And this calculation still excludes the costs of care provided by family members, increased risk of mortality and the wait to see a specialist in the first place” (2017, para 4). These findings really discredits Kathy Lavidges(2008), a writer for Yale Insights article “Does universal health care make everyone's life better?”,where she tries to talk up all the benefits of universal health care, while conveniently leaving out its flaws. When, in fact, the universal health care system does not make everyone's life better, that is at least in a world where the wasting of money due to a flawed system isn't considered beneficial. Universal health care not only makes its patients lose precious time with its long waiting periods, but it also creates an astronomical amount of lost wages and other medical expenses that Americans cannot afford.
Americans would not tolerate the quality of the health insurance that universal health care provides them with. Most within the country are used to the world class care that the country already provides them with, no one in the country would be willing to downgrade their health care quality for the miniscule change in price that they may find, that is at least if they are educated in this topic. Not only would universal healthcare downgrade the quality of treatment you will receive, but odds are you might not receive the treatment at all. According to the two directors at the CATO Institute, Tanner and Michael state that “Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them” (2007, para 3). An even more shocking finding presented by the pair is that “Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year” (2007 para 3). This in no way shows that universal health care would be a beneficial system for the U.S. to enact on its people.
Another surprising thing about universal health care is that having the proper insurance in countries using this system doesn't exactly mean access to proper care. In the same article put out by Tanner and Michael from the CATO Institutes, they reveal that “ in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a "causal relationship" between health insurance and better health” (2007, para 5). This means that in countries that provide universal health care to their citizens do not in fact provide better or more affordable health care. Countries that do not require access to health care for all of its citizens like the U.S. for example do not provide a lesser quality of health care. Tanner and Michael also quote that “Believe it or not, there is "no evidence," Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, "health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care" (2007, para 5). While many believe that universal health care gives everyone access to quality health care, this is simply not true. Many countries who provide universal health care are unable to provide their citizens proper treatment in a timely manner, not to mention the rate at which their insurance companies deny coverage for needed treatments. No matter with or without insurance in the U.S., you are able to access quality health care, this is something that countries that provide universal health care cannot say.
Another reason Americans do not want universal healthcare because universal health care is known to supposedly suppresses medical innovation, which is something that America is known for. According to Matthew Herper (2011), a writer for Forbes magazine, of 3,000 articles published relating to biomedical research 1,169 of those came from the United states, that's just shy of 40%. In reading the article it is evident that no other country even comes close to publishing the amount of peer reviewed and accepted publishings. Great Britain is the country that comes in a not so close second. The country that is oh so proud to offer its citizens universal healthcare provides only 300 credited publishings, which is a 74% decrease in scientific findings compared to its friend to the west. Following Great Britain are other countries that provide their citizens with universal healthcare, but not quality research into finding new methods of treatment. These countries consist of Canada (170), France (100), Italy (90), and Australia (105), combined these countries published a total of 465 publishings, give or take a few. A country that offers a private health care system, the U.S., seemingly dwarfs all of the countries medical findings throughout the world, of which, many of those are using the universal health care system, to no advantage at all.
This lack of advancements in countries using the universal health care can be caused by a plethora of different problems. Although, most prominent, would be the lack of governmental funding. According to Jonathan Cohn, senior national correspondent for the Huffington Post, “In a universal coverage system, the government would seek to limit spending by forcing down payments to doctors and pharmaceutical companies, while scrutinizing treatments for cost-effectiveness. This, in turn, would lead to both less innovation and less access to the innovation that already exists” (2007, Para 1). This backs up the claim that one major reason why countries using the universal health care system lack the innovation that of the U.Ss due to the limited amount of funding they receive from their governments to run better the worlds health care system. The United States is home to the largest health institute in the world, the National Health Institute, which spends on average more than 28 billion dollars on funding medical research. That only accounts for 1/3 of all the money being spent in the U.S. to fund these medical advances. The point being, that in order to properly fund medical advances in a country you must have a great source of income, and countries that operate using the universal health care system do not, and it shows. While universal healthcare may seem to have its perks with its supposed decreased costs, it is up to the citizens of a country to pay higher medical costs in order to to support the amount of research that a country must do to provide medical breakthroughs to its people. These medical breakthroughs are after all, what dictates the quality of care you will receive.
In closing, while universal health care seems to be associated with many benefits, this is nothing but a common misconception.

The actual benefits to this type of system are few and far inbetween. Those who use this type of system are often plagued with the many negative impacts it forces on its users, some of which include unreasonably long wait times, a diminishing quality of healthcare, increased taxes, lack of medical advances or innovations, and limited availability of healthcare professionals. All of which have tremendous impacts on the quality of life that is obtainable within a country that provides universal health care for its citizens. For most, the universal health care system is a problem that they have just learned to live with, but for Americans, the drastic decrease in the quality of healthcare at which they would receive would not be accepted nor tolerated. Regardless of your view on this topic it is absolutely crucial that the United States looks into other options, rather than universal health care in order to better the many aspects of health care that it offers to its

citizens.